Download - LEXINGTON, KY

2015 LFCPA TEN-YEAR PARKING

ANALYSIS

LEXINGTON, KY

May, 2015

FINAL

LEXINGTON, KY

2015 LFCPA TEN-YEAR PARKING ANALYSIS

April 2015 FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Project Understanding ....................................................................................................................... 9

Scope of Services ............................................................................................................................. 10

Methodologies Used ........................................................................................................................ 10

PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ........................................................................................................... 12

Study Area ......................................................................................................................................... 12

CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 13

Current Central Business District ..................................................................................................... 13

Current Public Parking Supply ......................................................................................................... 14

Effective Parking Supply .................................................................................................................. 14

Current Public Parking Demand ..................................................................................................... 16

Daytime Occupancy ....................................................................................................................... 16

Evening Occupancy ........................................................................................................................ 16

Current Parking Adequacy ............................................................................................................. 19

Analysis by Zone................................................................................................................................ 19

FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 22

Attitudes on Driving are Changing ................................................................................................ 22

Limiting Factors ................................................................................................................................. 23

Future Demand Analysis .................................................................................................................. 24

STAKEHOLDER INPUT ............................................................................................................................... 29

PARKING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 32

Shared Parking .................................................................................................................................. 33

Shared Parking Locations ................................................................................................................ 34

Fee-In-Lieu ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Zoning Code Review ........................................................................................................................ 37

Current Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 38

Recommended Zoning Parking Code Changes/Considerations ............................................. 38

Prohibition of New Surface Parking within the CBD ..................................................................... 38

Transportation Demand Management ......................................................................................... 39

Shared Vehicle Programs ................................................................................................................ 39

Bicycle Racks .................................................................................................................................... 40

Wayfinding/Signage ........................................................................................................................ 40

NEW PARKING GARAGE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 42

Capital Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 42

Operating Costs ................................................................................................................................ 43

Structural Repair Budget ................................................................................................................. 43

Minimum Parking Structure Dimensions ......................................................................................... 44

Walking Distances ............................................................................................................................ 44

Potential Parking Structure Sites ..................................................................................................... 45

Matrix Comparison of the Alternatives .......................................................................................... 48

PARKING POLICIES AND PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 49

Graduated Fines ............................................................................................................................... 50

Current Citation Rates ..................................................................................................................... 50

LEXINGTON, KY


April 2015 FINAL

Parking Rates ..................................................................................................................................... 51

Garage Operating Expenses .......................................................................................................... 54

On-Street Hours of Operation ......................................................................................................... 56

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 60

Projected Operating Revenue ....................................................................................................... 60

Projected Operating Expenses ....................................................................................................... 60

Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................... 62

New Garage Option A .................................................................................................................... 67

New Garage Option B ..................................................................................................................... 71

PROPOSED TEN-YEAR PLAN ................................................................................................................... 75

Phase 1 – 2015 & 2016 ...................................................................................................................... 75

Phase 2 – 2017 TO 2020 .................................................................................................................... 78

Phase 3 – 2021 TO 2025 .................................................................................................................... 82

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 83

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Weekday Adequacy .............................................................................................................. 19

Table 2: Weekday Adequacy by Zone ............................................................................................... 20

Table 3: Vacancy Rate Trends .............................................................................................................. 23

Table 4: Current Weekday Parking Occupancy (9/3/2014) ............................................................ 24

Table 5: Future Weekday Parking Demand ........................................................................................ 26

Table 6: Future Weekend Parking Demand ........................................................................................ 27

Table 7: Future Parking Demand .......................................................................................................... 27

Table 8: Future Conditions by Zone ...................................................................................................... 28

Table 9: Stakeholder Comments .......................................................................................................... 29

Table 10: Community Approach to Parking Planning ....................................................................... 32

Table 11: LOS Conditions: Walking Distances ..................................................................................... 45

Table 12: Alternative Site Matrix ........................................................................................................... 47

Table 13: Citation Rate Comparison.................................................................................................... 51

Table 14: Hourly Rate Comparison(Comparative Reference Set) .................................................. 51

Table 15: Local Market Rate Comparison .......................................................................................... 53

Table 16: Permit Rate Comparison ....................................................................................................... 53

Table 17: Expense per Space Matrix .................................................................................................... 55

Table 18: Estimated Year 1 Meter/Enforcement Revenue ............................................................... 59

Table 19: Five Year Historical Financial Summary............................................................................... 61

Table 20: Case 1 Financial Summary ................................................................................................... 64

Table 21: 1-20 Year Financial Summary ............................................................................................... 66

Table 22: Garage Option A................................................................................................................... 69

Table 23: Garage Option A System Financial Impact ...................................................................... 70

Table 24: Garage Option B ................................................................................................................... 73

Table 25: Garage Option B System Financial Impact ....................................................................... 74

Table A-1: Current Parking Supply ........................................................................................................ 90

Table A-2: Effective Supply .................................................................................................................... 91

Table A-3: Current Weekday Parking Occupancy (On-Street) ....................................................... 92

Table A-4: Evening On-Street Parking Occupancy (10/10/2014 ..................................................... 93

LEXINGTON, KY


April 2015 FINAL

Table A-5: LFCPA Garages Peak Occupancy (9/9/2014) ................................................................ 94

Table A-6: Non-LFCPA Public Parking Occupancy (9/9/2014) ........................................................ 95

Table A-7: Non-LFCPA Public Parking Adequacy (9/9/2014) ........................................................... 96

Figure 1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2: Effective Supply Factor .......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 3: Weekday Parking Occupancy Heat Map .......................................................................... 17

Figure 4: Evening On-Street Parking Occupancy Heat Map .......................................................... 18

Figure 5: Weekday Public Parking Occupancy by Zone .................................................................. 21

Figure 6: Parking Triangle ....................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 7: Minimum Parking Structure Dimensions ............................................................................... 44

Figure 8: Potential Structured Parking Locations by Zone ................................................................ 46

Figure 9: Evening On-Street Parking Block Face Heat Map ............................................................. 57

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Lexington & Fayette County Parking Authority (“LFCPA”) retained Walker Parking

Consultants (“Walker”) to evaluate the parking supply and demand in downtown Lexington,

perform an alternatives analysis to discuss potential management and operational

improvements, assess downtown’s need for a new parking structure including potential

location and design elements, and provide a 10-yr and 20-yr system financial analysis.

The purpose of this report is to provide a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the current

and future parking adequacy that clearly identifies the parking inventory, utilization and

availability in downtown Lexington, while providing insight on how the current inventory may

be used more efficiently and whether additional supply is warranted. The overall intent of this

evaluation is to provide LFCPA with the fundamental vision and strategic plan for the

downtown Lexington parking system over the next 10 years. Since parking is such a costly

asset, LFCPA is carefully considering the need for additional parking and opportunities to

maximize use of current parking assets. As a result, the impact of the resulting analysis and

recommendations will then be measured against parking system’s future financial

sustainability.

Public parking plans should not lead community development; rather the broader community

goals for the downtown should be supported by any proposed parking strategy. With that in

mind, the parking strategy should serve as a tool to help ensure downtown success and

embody the following guiding principles:

Maintain the unique sense of place that downtown Lexington has cultivated, while also

providing proximate and convenient parking options;

Support for a park once, pedestrian friendly vision that improves connectivity for visitors,

residents, and employees through improved wayfinding and partnerships with local

public and alternative transportation systems;

Provide a customer-friendly experience for visitors, residents, and employees centered

on convenience, access, and fairness by providing parking options based on an

economic choice;

Continue to help facilitate and encourage a diverse economy through partnerships

with Downtown Development Authority, private developers, and the local community

to enable economic development;

Maintain a responsibility to optimize public investment in parking infrastructure by

improving access to under-utilized private parking supply and better distributing

demand.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

2

STUDY AREA

The defined study area is generally bound by West 3rd Street to the north; Maxwell Street to the

south; Eastern Avenue to the east; and Jefferson Street to the west.

A secondary study area, outside the main downtown corridor, known as Chevy Chase, has

also been included. This area is bound by South Ashland Avenue, Chevy Chase Place, and

High Street, with Euclid Avenue running through the middle.

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

Subject Comment

Off-Street Parking Financing of parking structure’s remains an issue and we need to address how to

effectively pay for parking structures.

Parking Operations

We have parking spaces available, not necessarily where a person may want them.

Possible partnership with private property owners to take advantage of existing

underutilized parking space.

Parking Rates Parking downtown is cheap, and the price can afford to be raised. This will support

infrastructure needs… parking convenience justifies a higher cost.

Parking Rates Restaurants downtown (many upscale) should help absorb the cost of parking. More

restaurants/businesses downtown should participate in a parking validation program

Parking Supply Parking must be accessible and close to building and must be able to maneuver trucks in

and out of parking area.

Parking Supply There is a perception problem from the suburban population that they “don’t know where

to park” and “don’t think there is availability”.

Parking Supply Owners and business workers want to park within very close proximity to their workplace

Parking Supply Parking problems mostly occur at night when there is no parking enforcement. Larger

nighttime market than daytime market.

Parking Rates Parking rates are very reasonable, would rather increase night time parking cost than day

time.

Parking Policy

Parking requirements for business zoned property should not require a specific amount of

parking spaces. This creates underutilized parking.

Parking Alternatives Bike lockers and public restrooms could encourage more bike riders.

Off-Street Parking

Adequate lighting of parking structures, artwork and technological features are needed to

make the garages more inviting and welcoming. The Helix Garage and its improvements is

a good example of what can be done with a parking structure.

Parking Operations

Property owners and real estate representatives need to work together more closely when

marketing parking as part of its development or leases. There appears to be little or no

interface or not as much as should be. Realtors and developers need to work more closely

with the LPA. LPA can play a broker role in development.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

3

CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS

The supply and demand study focuses on the on-street and off-street components of public

parking spaces within the study area. Parking supply and utilization details for the LFCPA

managed garages and privately owned and managed public parking locations were

provided by LFCPA and their sub-contractor Republic Parking. On-street parking supply and

utilization were gathered by Walker.

This study’s combined fieldwork identified:

9,352 ± parking spaces within the defined study area;

6,487± (69%) spaces are located in private off-street public parking garages;

2,057± spaces (22%) are in LFCPA managed garages;

808± (9%) are located on-street.

CURRENT PARKING ADEQUACY

The current parking supply located in the study area was found to be sufficient for the current

demand.

Weekday parking conditions at 10:00 AM on Thursday:

5,466± vehicles parked in public parking spaces(58% occupancy);

3,886± unoccupied public parking spaces.

Weekday evening on-street parking conditions at 8:00 PM on Friday:

512± vehicles parked in public on-street parking spaces(63% occupancy);

296± unoccupied public on-street parking spaces.

Observed peak parking conditions by parking supply type:

56% peak Non-LFCPA Public Off-street occupancy = 2,884± unoccupied spaces

73% peak LFCPA Public Off-street occupancy = 550± unoccupied spaces

63% peak Public On-street occupancy = 296± unoccupied spaces

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

4

Current Parking Supply Adequacy

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

Definition: Effective Supply is the maximum number of parking spaces that can realistically be used within a given parking system.

FUTURE PARKING CONDITIONS AND PROJECTED DEMAND

Of the known details for identified future developments there is approximately 57,814 ft2 of

Retail; 11,638 ft2 of Restaurant space; 376 Hotel rooms; 75 Residential Apartments; 87

Residential Condos; a 7,958 ft2 bank; and 152,853 ft2 of additional Office space. The following

projects encompass the identified future development activity:

Centrepoint

505 on Main

Old Courthouse

Main and Vine

The Square

21c Museum Hotels

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

5

RECOMMENDATIONS

Long-term consideration for a new parking garage in Zone 5 should be considered

once the Centrepointe development project is completed.

Short-term consideration for a new parking garage in Zones 1 or 2 should be considered

for completion within the next 2 years.

Increase enforcement and meter hours from the current 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM to at least

8:00 AM to 8:00 PM

o Consider an associated offset by changing to an evening rate schedule for

LFCPA garages that sets the first 2 hours for free.

Increase the number of bike racks in downtown Lexington. Similar cities have found

great success promoting biking to downtown by removing just a few, strategic on-street

spaces and installing central bicycle “parklets” that can “park” 10 to 20 bicycles

Consider bicycle parking areas within parking facilities. These areas can be locked,

fenced, or secured individually to provide access and security to permitted patrons.

Permits to access and utilize the secure bicycle parking areas can be free or a very low

annual fee to gain critical adoption. As adoption improves, fees can be adjusted to

provide economic choice and fund further bicycle friendly programs.

Expand the existing residential parking permit program to additional neighborhoods

around Chevy Chase as demand grows.

Improve wayfinding in the Chevy Chase neighborhood to improve overall consistency

and parking choices to parking patrons.

On-street rate increase of $.25-.50 per hour with planned ongoing annual or bi-annual

increases

Off-street (garage) daily max increase by $1.00. Determine off-street (garage) average

length of stay for each facility and consider a small, $.50 increase to the corresponding

rate band.

Off-street permit rate increase of $10 for each permit with planned ongoing annual or

bi-annual increases, and introduce the following new permit options:

o Evening Only Permits

o Parking Debit Cards

o Day Permits

o Frequent Parker Program

Citation base fine increase from $15 to $25

o Consider a graduated or incentive based fine schedule for repeat offenders

Longer-term consideration for demand based pricing. As new on-street technology is

introduced, LFCPA should consider demand based pricing by adjusting fees, higher

and lower, based not only on location but also time of day variables.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

6

Increase use of underutilized public and private parking assets by employing a

community shared parking program. A shared Parking program will allow private

owners to market and lease unused excess supply and generate additional local

revenue.

o The LFCPA can fill the broker position by introducing available private spaces to

the public market by providing signage, connecting private owners to monthly

parkers, or inventorying available private spaces and selling them online for the

private owner.

o The LFCPA can work with private parking supply owners to allow hourly or

evening fee based parking in the evenings when their demand is low. This can

be accomplished through piggy-backing on the existing Pay by Phone

application.

Walker recommends that the zoning code allow reduction of the required number of

parking spaces based upon a shared parking study performed in accordance with the

latest edition of Shared Parking, by a qualified traffic or parking consultant

The parking requirement in the zoning ordinance may be reduced or eliminated by a

Payment In Lieu of Parking (PILOP), or Fee-in-Lieu ordinance. The fee (per space) could

initially be set at the estimated cost per space for LFCPA to build new supply, but

adjusted, as needed, per project and per year.

Work with LFCPA’s parking system and hardware vendors to coordinate and implement

a plan and timeline for EMV compliance in 2015

o EMV regulations are expected to be released in October 2015, and are

expected to impact the risk and cost for processing credit cards, as well as the

physical hardware used to read credit cards

o Parking system vendors should work with their customers (LFCPA) to determine

the proper path and timeline to bring non-compliant hardware to compliance in

2015

Work with the Downtown Development Authority to determine the appropriate metrics

for evaluating and grading potential parking supply additions and requirements for new

development opportunities

o This report provides guidance on the following criteria to assist both LFCPA and

the DDA determine appropriate evaluation criteria:

Walking Distance – Level of Service by patron type

Operating and Capital Costs

Structural Repair Budget Assumptions

Minimum Parking Structure Dimensions

Fee-In-Lieu (Payment In Lieu of Parking) options

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

7

o Shared Parking opportunities:

Walker recommends the adoption of the base parking ratios developed

by the Urban Land Institute, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), or the Parking Consultants Council of the National Parking Association

PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

2015 – 2016 (PHASE 1: SHORT TERM)

Increase sidewalk bicycle racks downtown, along with a pilot of 1 bicycle parklet that

would remove 1 on-street space

On-street and Off-street hourly increase of $.50 per hour

Off-street daily max increase by $1.00, including off-street rate band changes based on

average length of stay data

Increase Victorian Square permit pricing by $10.00 for each permit type

Introduce new permit types to increase monthly parking

EMV migration for credit card hardware both on- and off-street

In coordination with the Downtown Development Authority, determine appropriate

evaluation criteria for potential economic development opportunities and standardize

the guidelines for ongoing management

Improve wayfinding in the Chevy Chase area and expand the residential parking

permit program to the adjacent neighborhood, as demand warrants in order to

provide easy short-term implementations to prepare the area for increased

development growth and the resulting parking demand

2017 – 2020 (PHASE 2: MID-TERM)

Increase on-street operations and enforcement until, at a minimum, 8:00 PM M – F

Work with the Downtown Development Authority to determine the appropriate

evaluating and grading metrics for potential parking supply additions and requirements

related to new development opportunities

Re-assess overall downtown parking supply and demand

o Consider construction of a new structured parking facility in Zone 1 or Zone 2

Re-evaluate on-street and off-street rates for continuous, but modest increases to adjust

for inflation and any other variables affecting market pricing

o Citation base fine increase by $10.00

o Consider a graduated or incentive based fine schedule for repeat offenders

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

8

Depending on the success of the increased bicycle racks and parklet(s), consider

installing secure bicycle access controlled areas

Outline and implement an ‘LFCPA Downtown Shared Parking Program’ as described in

this report

2021 – 2025 (PHASE 3: LONG-TERM)

As on-street hardware is replaced, consider how demand based pricing mechanisms

with new technology can help manage and distribute demand

Re-assess overall downtown parking supply and demand along with unique

characteristics of specific downtown areas to determine potential needs and locations

for new parking structures

Continue to evaluate local and national trends related to single-occupancy vehicle

usage and changes modal trends, which can impact current and future parking

demand characteristics

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

9

INTRODUCTION

Downtown parking systems serve numerous stakeholders, demand flexibility for growth, and

integrate with transportation helping move significant traffic volumes. As such, development

of an integrated, long-term, strategic parking management and financial plan is critical. To

assist with this approach, Walker Parking Consultants performed a parking study for the

Lexington & Fayette County Parking Authority (“LFCPA”) focusing on future parking needs and

their associated financial impact.

Lexington’s Downtown Central Business District is a unique space. In addition to the usual retail

shops, restaurants, office buildings and government complexes, this district is adjacent to the

University of Kentucky campus. This proximity to a large university, along with the diverse

needs of a thriving downtown creates unique challenges for a parking operation. The

Lexington-Fayette County Parking Authority has done a tremendous job managing their

parking infrastructure in accordance with the downtown area’s varied needs and serves as a

model parking management system. This report is intended to support their efforts to

continuously improve the parking experience in downtown Lexington.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

The LFCPA has engaged Walker Parking Consultants to provide a parking study that

anticipates future parking needs and develops a ten-year plan aimed at supporting future

development and promoting an effective parking system. Included within this consultation is

a parking supply/demand analysis, projected future parking demand and recommended

improvements to meet future parking needs, recommended changes to existing LFCPA

policies and practices, and evaluation of potential locations for additional parking and

development of a 10- and 20-year financial forecast.

A number of previous parking studies have been performed for the LFCPA within the last few

years. Walker was able to build on these previous studies and relied on previously-collected

information where appropriate.

Building structured parking is expensive and therefore we view this as a last resort to address

the growth challenges facing the LFCPA. Before recommending additional structured

parking, we advocate for the optimization of existing parking facilities, the usage of alternative

transportation modes, and parking management strategies to create a more uniform parking

distribution.

To complete the Plan, Walker engaged in a review of existing parking policies and practices

and developed recommendations for LFCPA to execute. This includes a review of downtown

public parking pricing, time restrictions, parking citations fines, parking enforcement hours, the

employment of on-street versus off-street management strategies, the use of parking

technologies, parking permit programs, and more. In cases where others have commented

on parking management policies and practices, we will review and augment

recommendations.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

10

Additionally, based on Walker’s experience with the successful design and construction of

thousands of parking facilities over the past 49 years, we identified and analyzed multiple sites

that may be candidates for future parking facilities and supply decision-making information

such as design efficiency, project cost, cost per added space, context relative to adjacent

uses, traffic impact, etc.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Worked with EHI Consultants to conduct numerous stakeholder meetings to gather and

provide community feedback on the parking system.

Identified 10 cities, similar to downtown Lexington, were included as a reference set to

benchmark citation, permit, and hourly pricing.

Observed the day and evening parking system utilization through a supply and

demand analysis.

Evaluated the current parking policies and technology options implemented within the

study area.

Performed a parking alternatives analysis.

Lastly, a 10-yr and 20-yr financial analysis was developed to present two future cases

including a base case showing modest changes and a system optimization case.

o The system optimization case also considered the financial impact of a new

parking garage. The potential new garage is similarly analyzed under two

scenarios, a high financial performance case based on the highest two

performing LFCPA garages and a low financial performance case based on the

lowest two performing LFCPA garages.

METHODOLOGIES USED

Walker used a variety of methodologies to successfully complete this project, including the

following:

Performed field data collection using standard forms that we have successfully used for

hundreds of similar studies. These forms were used to gather information regarding the

existing parking inventory including name and location of spaces, capacity, user

restrictions, and rates. Forms were also used to collect parking occupancy, turnover

and duration data. The field data has been entered into an MS Excel spreadsheet for

tabulation and analysis and the results have been provided within this report.

Best practices employed by other municipalities have been considered when

developing a plan for Lexington. Walker maintains a database for future reference.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

11

Walker utilized various databases that we maintain for purposes of making comparisons

and projections. These databases include those relating to parking generation rates

and recommended parking demand ratios, parking facility and system operating

revenues and expenses, parking facility construction costs, and parking access and

revenue control system costs.

The technical aspects of our work were based on industry-accepted standards that

have withstood the tests of time. This includes our work relating to parking

supply/demand analysis, parking facility site analysis, and parking facility financial

planning.

Our operational theories, recommendations, policies, and practices were reviewed by

one of our operations consultants – someone with significant experience as a parking

operator – before making their way into our deliverables. This ensures that our

recommendations go beyond theory and actually work in the real world.

Our parking facility site planning and construction cost opinions have been based on

our experience with the design of thousands of parking structures, significantly more

than any other firm.

Our parking facility cost opinions are informed by thousands of projects that have

made it through the complete design and construction process.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

12

PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The assessment of current conditions includes a comprehensive review of parking inventory,

the effective parking supply, parking occupancy trends, and parking adequacy during peak

conditions.

STUDY AREA

The defined study area for this analysis is generally bound by West 3rd Street to the north;

Maxwell Street to the south; Eastern Avenue to the east; and Jefferson Street to the west. A

secondary study area, outside the main downtown corridor, known as Chevy Chase, has also

been included. This area is bound by South Ashland Avenue, Chevy Chase Place, and High

Street, with Euclid Avenue running through the middle. This purposeful configuration

encompasses the wide variety of land uses and captures the unique parking characteristics

within downtown Lexington.

The study area is defined in the following Figure 1.

Figure 1: Study Area


LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

13

CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS

CURRENT CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

The primary source for the current Lexington CBD data was found in the Central Business

District Office Market Studies (Fourth Quarter 2013) performed by the Coleman Group.

Additional data was gathered from the Downtown Lexington Market Inventory 2014,

produced by the Lexington Downtown Development Authority. The purpose of this effort was

to build a picture of the central downtown district, including the number of restaurants, hotels,

offices, and residential units. The following data, gathered from these two reports provides a

snapshot of all existing demand drivers on the current parking supply:

151,875 ft2 of Retail establishments

50,625 ft2 Specialty Retail and/or Grocery

A total of 121 Restaurants and Bars

o 54 Fine to Casual Dining establishments

o 45 Fast Casual or Fast Food establishments

o 24 Bars

A 900 seat Performing Arts Theater

123,000 ft2 Convention Center

The 23,000 seat Rupp Arena

773 total Hotel Rooms

211 Apartments and Condos – split evenly among 1 and 2 bedroom condominiums

and apartments

An estimated 2,070,577 ft2 of Office space located in the defined study area

o This estimate ranged between 2,400,000 to 2,600,000 between the two CBD

market studies, however these totals included buildings located outside of the

defined study area

o Of this 2,070,577 ft2, approximately 15% is currently vacant

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

14

CURRENT PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY

Walker conducted a physical inventory of all on-street parking spaces within the study area.

Off-Street public parking inventories, for both LFCPA and non-LFCPA managed locations, were

provided to Walker Parking Consultants by the LFCPA. The inventory was tabulated by block

and categorized as either on-street, LFCPA managed public off-street, or non-LFCPA public

off-street.

For the defined study area, the parking supply totaled 9,352 spaces. This inventory does not

include private parking spaces, which were excluded from our analysis at the direction of the

client.

The total parking inventory includes:

808 on-street parking spaces (primarily metered)

LFCPA managed off-street public parking:

o The Transit Center Garage – 777 spaces

o The Victorian Square Garage – 382 spaces

o The Helix Garage – 380 spaces

o The Courthouse Garage – 518 spaces

6,614 off-street non-LFCPA managed public

parking spaces

EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY

When discussing the utilization of a parking system, it is important to consider the concept of

effective supply. Effective supply is the maximum number of parking spaces that can

realistically be used within a given parking system. An effective supply cushion helps to

protect against the inevitable loss of spaces resulting from temporary disturbances such as

construction, incorrectly parked cars, snow removal, etc. This cushion also helps to decrease

traffic congestion by minimizing the amount of time visitors must spend looking for an empty

space. For on-street parking, Walker generally recommends an effective supply equal to 85%

of the total capacity. This allows a sizable cushion of spaces so that traffic does not back up

on surface streets.

Off-street parking requires less of a cushion, generally 90% to 95% of the actual supply,

depending on the type of facility and the anticipated user group. Smaller cushions are

calculated for long-term parking locations because long-term parkers (ex: downtown

employees) tend to be familiar with the facilities and spaces. These locations are not as

subject to frequent turn over or unfamiliar parkers. For this study 95% was used for the non-

LFCPA off-street locations due to the assumption that they would have a higher number of

long-term parkers.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

15

For the off-street public lots, it is expected that much of the traffic is generated by a

combination of frequent visitors and employees, and therefore use an effective supply of 90%

of the total capacity. Short-term off-street parkers are assumed to have a higher

concentration in LFCPA managed locations due to lower price-points therefore, 90% of the

actual supply was calculated as the LFCPA managed effective supply.

The study area includes an actual total of 8,544 off-street spaces and 808 on-street spaces,

before any adjustments are made to account for an effective supply. After the effective

supply factors are applied, the study area’s effective supply is 8,014 off-street spaces and 687

on-street spaces for a total effective supply of 8,705 spaces, as shown in the following table:

Figure 2: Effective Supply Factor


Parking Actual Supply Effective Supply Factor Effective Supply Operating Cushion

LFCPA Garages 2,057 90% 1,851 206

Non-LFCPA Off-Street 6,487 95% 6,163 324

On-Street 808 85% 687 121

Total 9,352 90% 8,701 651

Effective Supply Calculations

Configuration Type of User

Scattered surface lots operate less

efficiently than more compact facilities

Regular parking patrons often find

available spaces more efficiently than

infrequent v isitors

On-Street

On-street parking is less efficient than off-

street due to the time it takes patrons to

navigate traffic and find the last few

vacant spots

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

16

CURRENT PUBLIC PARKING DEMAND

A series of parking utilization counts were conducted over multiple days to identify local

parking characteristics. LFCPA staff provided daytime off-street public parking occupancy

counts for September 9th, 10th, and 11th. The primary field observations for on-street

occupancy counts occurred on October 9th (daytime) and 10th (evening).

DAYTIME OCCUPANCY

The total public parking system was estimated to have an effective occupancy of 63% over

the observation dates.

Daytime on-street counts from 10/9/2014 had a peak 413 (51% effective occupancy) vehicles

parked around 4pm. There are areas and times that stress the current public parking supply

but the current parking conditions indicate that the supply satisfies the demand.

The LFCPA managed garages exhibited a daytime occupancy peak of 1,507 (81%) vehicles

parked, around 10:00 AM on September 9th.

Non-LFCPA managed, private surface lots and garages had a peak of 3,063 (58%) vehicles

parked, around 10:00 AM on September 9th. The average occupancy for all three days of

non-LFCPA occupancy counts was slightly lower with an average of 3,478 (56%) vehicles

parked.

EVENING OCCUPANCY

Evening on-street counts, performed on 10/10/2014, exhibited peak

occupancy of 512 (63%) vehicles parked at 8:00 PM. The evening

on-street occupancy counts averaged 100 more vehicles parked

than the daytime.

The majority of this increase is concentrated on Short and Church

Streets in the area east of Broadway and West of N. Limestone. This

area is defined by blocks 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, and 14. A significant

contributor to this demand concentration is due to the high volume

of restaurants, bars, and night-time activities. In the table below,

nearly every one of the blocks in this area were at or greater than

100% occupancy for the entire evening.

Although the restaurant and bar concentration does drive visitors to

this small area in downtown Lexington, free parking that starts after

5:00 PM is the main parking demand driver towards on-street spaces. Alternatively, the

Victorian Square facility, located in the same area, had more than 280 (14% effective

occupancy) spaces available throughout the same evening.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

17

The overall system can support some increase in downtown parking demand, there are

locations within the study area that experience very high demand. These areas have been

identified in red within the following figures.

Figure 3: Weekday Parking Occupancy Heat Map


Total Parking Supply Non-LFCPA Public Supply Public On-street Supply LFCPA Public Supply

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

18

Figure 4: Evening On-street Parking Occupancy Heat Map


Public On-street Supply

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

19

CURRENT PARKING ADEQUACY

Combining the on-street and off-street counts, although gathered on separate days, can

provide an estimate for peak occupancy across the entire public parking system within the

defined study area. This analysis shows a mid-morning total of 5,523 parked vehicles.

Comparing this peak occupancy to the effective parking supply of 8,701 spaces, results in a

3,178 (63%) effective space surplus (adequacy).

The non-LFCPA parking locations experienced the highest effective adequacy during the

observed daytime conditions. The effective parking adequacy (surplus) for these locations, at

peak was observed to be 2,561 spaces, less than 59% occupancy.

Table 1: Weekday Adequacy


ANALYSIS BY ZONE

The previous section of this report provided an overview of the current parking conditions in

downtown Lexington. The data shows an operating surplus during peak weekday conditions

in public off-street and on-street supply. To further analyze the local market conditions and

assess adequacy, the study area is divided into six zones (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6).

Conclusions:

While each zone exhibits unique parking demand patterns and levels of adequacy, all

zones have unoccupied parking supply with peak occupancy rates that range from

33% (Zone 6) to 80% (Zones 1 & 4).

There is an actual surplus and effective surplus of parking in all zones.

The study area zones are provided in the following Table.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

20

Table 2: Weekday Adequacy by Zone


ZONE 1

Type Actual Supply

Effective

Supply Factor Effective Supply 10:00 AM

Effective

Occupancy % Actual Surplus Effective Surplus

On-street 277 85% 235 144 61% 133 91

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 2,244 95% 2,132 1,750 82% 494 382

LFCPA Off-street 382 90% 344 271 79% 111 73

Total 2,903 90% 2,711 2,165 80% 738 546

ZONE 2

Type Actual Supply

Effective


Effective


On-street 192 85% 163 93 57% 99 70

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 418 95% 397 326 82% 92 71

LFCPA Off-street 518 90% 466 304 65% 214 162

Total 1,128 90% 1,027 723 70% 405 304

ZONE 3

Type Actual Supply

Effective


Effective


On-street 120 85% 102 32 31% 88 70


LFCPA Off-street - 90% - - 0% - -

Total 908 90% 851 440 52% 468 411

ZONE 4

Type Actual Supply

Effective


Effective


On-street 73 85% 62 33 53% 40 29

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 1,780 95% 1,691 1,376 81% 404 315


Total 1,853 90% 1,753 1,409 80% 444 344

ZONE 5

Type Actual Supply

Effective


Effective


On-street 152 85% 129 54 42% 98 75


LFCPA Off-street 1,157 90% 1,041 890 85% 267 151

Total 1,835 90% 1,670 1,249 75% 586 421

ZONE 6

Type Actual Supply

Effective


Effective


On-street - 85% - - 0% - -

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 2,511 95% 2,385 794 33% 1,717 1,591


Total 2,511 90% 2,385 794 33% 1,717 1,591

ZONE 7

Type Actual Supply

Effective


Effective


On-street 67 85% 57 33 58% 34 24

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street - 95% - - 0% - -


Total 67 90% 57 33 58% 34 24

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

21

Figure 5: Weekday Public Parking Occupancy by Zone


LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

22

FUTURE CONDITIONS

ATTITUDES ON DRIVING ARE CHANGING

'Millennials' (those born between 1980 and 2000) are having a significant impact on

transportation and parking these days because their attitudes toward driving are different

than the historical norm.

Recent studies of this group’s behavior suggest that the “driving boom may be over.” After

decades of adding more cars to the household fleet while moving further and further out into

the suburbs, Americans are waiting longer to get licensed, driving less and increasingly turning

to alternatives such as mass transit or car-sharing programs, according to a new study by the

U.S. Public Research Interest Group, or PIRG.

This report says that "the time has come for America to hit the reset button on transportation

policy – replacing the policy infrastructure of the driving boom years with a more efficient,

flexible and nimble system that is better able to meet the transportation needs of the 21st

century."

The changes are apparent among virtually all demographic groups, but especially so with

Millennials. Millennials are showing an increased desire to move back into urban centers

where cars are often a hindrance, and they are increasingly receptive to mass transit – a

factor that can be seen in a steady growth in ridership on both city bus and rail systems

According to a recent study conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Institute:

The percent of 19 year olds who held a driver’s license decreased from 87% in 1983 to

75% by 2010.


75% by 2010.


46% by 2010.

According to an article reported at www.Businessweek.Bloomberg.com, in a recent study

university students rated the following as “most important.”

Friends 52%

Studying 29%

Mobile Phones 24%

Games 13%

Facebook 11%

Sex 9%

One of the conclusions is that electronic communications are reducing the need for face to

face personal interaction, and reducing the necessity of driving.

http://www.businessweek.bloomberg.com/

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

23

LIMITING FACTORS

Walker has relied on community stakeholders, market reports, and City representatives to

provide the projections for future build-out and reabsorption of vacant space. This report

analyzes the results of full project completion, but no change in vacancy absorption given

that the current status of 14-15% is not expected to change significantly. This assumption is

based on the local market averaging over 14% vacancy and available sub-lease space from

2004 to 2013.

Table 3: Vacancy Rate Trends

Source: Coleman Group, LLC: Central Business District Fourth Quarter 2013 Office Market Study

Walker also assumes that new downtown businesses will be successful and generate parking

demand at a level consistent with national averages. If, for any reason, there are changes to

the size or land-use projections, future parking demand may also be affected. Also, the

addition of new parking facilities or the destruction of existing supplies will have an impact on

the future adequacy projected in this report.

The Future Conditions Shared Parking Model only considers the identified projects and is not to

be considered an estimate of total future system demand across all potential parking demand

drivers.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

24

FUTURE DEMAND ANALYSIS

To calculate the projected future parking demand for specific projects identified as “in-

queue” Walker reviewed the proposed future developments and vacancy absorption

assumptions in downtown Lexington. The data used in this study were found in the following:

Central Business District Fourth Quarter 2013; Office Market Study

Central Business District Office Space Surveyed 2009

Real Estate Development Economic Gap Analysis

Downtown Lexington Market Inventory 2014

The Walker model is initially based on parking ratios that have been established for many

different land uses by transportation industry research. The ratios describe the number of cars

that are generated per 1,000 square feet (measured in gross leasable area when available) of

a given land use. A restaurant, for example, can generate many more people per square

foot than an office, and thus requires a higher ratio.

Some of the typical base, unadjusted ratios include the following:

Table 4: Current Weekday Parking Occupancy (9/3/2014)

Land Use Community Retail General Office Quality Restaurant

Employee 0.8 cars/1,000 SF GLA 2.85 cars/1,000 SF GLA 1.8 cars/1,000 SF GLA

Visitors 3.2 cars/1,000 SF GLA 0.15 cars/1,000 SF GLA 15.2 cars/1,000 SF GLA

Peak Period 1:00 PM 11:00 AM 6:00 PM


Any given study area will have unique characteristics that make it different from the averages

developed through national research. Walker uses its knowledge of parking patterns, research

on the study area, and client input to adjust the model to reflect conditions in the project

area. Specifically, we look at local use of transit (or other alternatives to driving), captive

market effects, and other local factors that may affect parking demand (such as a

particularly dense office complex that may be generating at a higher rate than average).

Having adjusted the ratios used in the model to reflect conditions in the local area, further

adjustments to the model account for the fact that not all land uses will be at their peaks at

the same time. For example, restaurants peak on weekend evenings when offices are at their

lowest. Therefore, it would be an error to plan the parking system such that spaces are built to

accommodate both peaks at once (though this is how spaces are planned according to

many city codes) – this would result in an oversupply of parking, which is wasteful. The

adjustment for hourly, daily and seasonal fluctuations is the basis of a shared parking analysis.

Walker also applied parking demand ratios according to the type of land use for the specified

projects. From these ratios, parking demand was projected for the following projects:

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

25

7,814 ft2 of Retail space; 11,638 ft2 of Restaurant space; 286 Hotel rooms; 16 Condos; 75

Apartments; 127,853 ft2 of Office space; and a 7,958 ft2 Bank

700± parking spaces provided as part of the project

1,265± total parking spaces for typical non-event weekdays

o 565± typical non-event weekday parking space deficit

848± total parking spaces for typical non-event weekends

o 148± typical non-event weekend parking space deficit

505 ON MAIN

17 Luxury Condos

Zero (0) change in net parking demand

MAIN AND VINE

18,000 ft2 of Retail space; 54 Residential Units

209± parking spaces provided as part of the project

139± total parking spaces for typical non-event weekdays

o 70± typical non-event weekday parking space surplus

138± total parking spaces for typical non-event weekends

o 71± typical non-event weekend parking space surplus

THE SQUARE

32,000 ft2 ground floor Retail (size unknown) and Restaurant space (size unknown)

72± parking spaces for typical non-event weekdays

58± parking spaces for typical non-event weekends

21C MUSEUM HOTELS

90 room Hotel; Art Museum (size unknown); Restaurant (size unknown)

99± parking spaces for typical non-event weekdays

89± parking spaces for typical non-event weekends

OLD COURTHOUSE

25,000 ft2 of Office space

95± total parking spaces for typical non-event weekdays

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

26

In order to project the demand generated by future developments in downtown Lexington, a

shared parking model for all identified and potential new development was created. These

projects are estimated to bring an additional demand for 1,671 spaces to downtown during

typical daytime conditions. Some of this demand can be absorbed into the current surplus,

given the assumption that some private parking, through shared parking agreements, can be

absorbed into available public parking options during peak conditions.

The projected new parking demand generated during peak weekday and weekend

conditions are presented in the following tables:

Table 5: Future Weekday Parking Demand


Demand Demand

Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio Mar Aug

Land Use Demand Mar 2:00 PM Daytime Daytime 2:00 PM 6:00 PM

Community Shopping Center (<400 ksf) 168 64% 95% 96% 100% 99 107

Employee 40 80% 100% 100% 95% 30 29

Fine/Casual Dining 177 95% 65% 82% 100% 89 149

Employee 32 100% 90% 100% 95% 27 30

Hotel-Leisure 338 100% 70% 100% 100% 237 287

Restaurant/Lounge 70 95% 33% 90% 60% 12 21

Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 257 100% 65% 60% 75% 75 116

Employee 94 100% 100% 100% 95% 89 36

Residential Guest 16 100% 20% 100% 100% 3 9

Residential Reserved - Condo 166 100% 100% 100% 97% 161 161

Residential Unreserved - Condo 0 100% 70% 100% 97% 0 0

Residential Reserved - Rental 119 100% 100% 100% 97% 115 115

Office 25k to 100k sq ft 8 100% 100% 100% 100% 8 0

Employee 81 100% 100% 100% 100% 81 19

Office 100k to 500k sq ft 32 100% 100% 100% 100% 32 2

Employee 366 100% 100% 100% 100% 365 87

Bank (Drive In Branch) 24 100% 70% 96% 100% 16 0

Employee 11 100% 100% 100% 100% 11 0

Employee 40 100% 100% 100% 100% 40 40

Subtotal Customer/Guest 1,090 364 375

Subtotal Employee/Resident 624 603 201

Subtotal Reserved Resident - Condo 166 161 161

Subtotal Reserved Resident - Rental 119 115 115

Subtotal Reserved Office 24/7 40 40 40

Subtotal Valet Retail/Dining 9 9

Subtotal Valet Hotel 379 379

Total Typical Day No Event 2,039 1,671 1,280

Total Parking Spaces Required 2,039 1,671 1,280

Weekday

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

27

Table 6: Future Weekend Parking Demand


Table 7: Future Parking Demand


Demand Demand

Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio Aug Late Dec

Land Use Demand Aug 8:00 PM Evening Evening 8:00 PM 5:00 PM

Community Shopping Center (<400 ksf) 185 69% 65% 96% 100% 80 123

Employee 46 80% 75% 100% 95% 26 37

Fine/Casual Dining 198 99% 100% 90% 100% 177 89

Employee 35 100% 100% 100% 95% 33 33

Hotel-Leisure 376 100% 90% 100% 100% 338 301

Restaurant/Lounge 70 99% 70% 30% 70% 10 4

Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 257 100% 100% 70% 75% 135 135

Employee 68 100% 55% 100% 95% 35 48

Residential Guest 24 95% 100% 100% 100% 23 10

Residential Reserved - Condo 166 100% 100% 100% 97% 161 161

Residential Unreserved - Condo 0 95% 98% 100% 97% 0 0

Residential Reserved - Rental 119 100% 100% 100% 97% 115 115

Office 25k to 100k sq ft 1 95% 0% 100% 100% 0 0

Employee 8 95% 0% 100% 100% 0 1

Office 100k to 500k sq ft 3 95% 0% 100% 100% 0 0

Employee 37 95% 0% 100% 100% 0 3

Bank (Drive In Branch) 24 100% 0% 96% 100% 0 0

Employee 13 95% 0% 100% 100% 0 0

Employee 40 100% 100% 100% 100% 40 40

Subtotal Customer/Guest 1,138 375 386

Subtotal Employee/Resident 207 94 122

Subtotal Reserved Resident - Condo 166 161 161

Subtotal Reserved Resident - Rental 119 115 115

Subtotal Reserved Office 24/7 40 40 40

Subtotal Valet Retail/Dining 9 9

Subtotal Valet Hotel 379 379

Total Typical Day No Event 1,173 1,212

Subtotal Event Patrons 0 0

Subtotal Event Employees 0 0

Total Parking Spaces Required 1,670 1,173 1,212

Weekend

Centrepointe

505 on

Main

Main +

Vine

The

Square

21c

Museum

Old

Courthouse Total

Customer/Guest, All Uses 257 0 32 55 11 8 364

Employee, All Uses 475 0 9 17 21 81 603

Reserved Resident 178 0 98 0 0 0 276

Reserved Office 24/7 34 0 0 0 0 6 40

Retail/Dining Valet 9 0 0 0 0 0 9

Hotel Valet 312 0 0 0 67 0 379

Total Typical Day No Event 1,265 0 139 72 99 95 1,671

Total Parking Spaces Required 1,265 0 139 72 99 95 1,671

Planned Supply 700 0 209 0 0 0 909

Surplus (+)/Deficit (-) -565 0 70 -72 -99 -95 -762

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

28

Table 8: Future Conditions by Zone


ZONE 1

Type Effective Supply Occupancy Supply + Adjusted Supply New Demand Projected Adequacy

On-street 235 144 - 235 55 36

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 2,132 1,750 - 2132 95 287

LFCPA Off-street 344 271 - 344 17 56

Total 2,711 2,165 - 2711 167 379

ZONE 2


On-street 163 93 - 163 - 70

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 397 326 - 397 21 50

LFCPA Off-street 466 304 - 466 67 95

Total 1,027 723 - 1027 88 216

ZONE 3


On-street 102 32 - 102 - 70

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 749 408 - 749 - 341

LFCPA Off-street - - - 0 - -

Total 851 440 - 851 - 411

ZONE 4


On-street 62 33 - 62 - 29

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 1,691 1,376 700 2391 1,265 (250)

LFCPA Off-street - - - - - -

Total 1,753 1,409 700 2453 1,265 (221)

ZONE 5


On-street 129 54 - 129 - 75

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 500 305 49 549 41 203

LFCPA Off-street 1,041 890 160 1201 98 213

Total 1,670 1,249 209 1879 139 491

ZONE 6


On-street - - - - - -

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street 2,385 794 - 2385 - 1,591


Total 2,385 794 - 2385 - 1,591

ZONE 7


On-street 57 33 - 57 - 24

Non-LFCPA Public Off-street - - - - - -


Total 57 33 - 57 - 24

Current Conditions Future Conditions

Current Conditions

Future Conditions

Future Conditions

Future Conditions

Future Conditions

Future Conditions

Future Conditions

Current Conditions

Current Conditions

Current Conditions

Current Conditions

Current Conditions

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

29

STAKEHOLDER INPUT

Stakeholder interviews, conducted by EHI Consultants, were held with a sample of individuals

and leaders in the downtown community. These stakeholders provide valuable insight

because they are directly impacted by parking policies and decisions. The following summary

highlights common subjects and reflects key comments obtained from community members.

The comments, summarized in the table below, provide key insights to the public community’s

perceptions on the LFCPA parking system. A common theme to the feedback was that

additional parking supply, specifically structured parking is desired. Multiple individuals also

indicated that parking downtown was inexpensive or “cheap”. Price increases that fund new

supply or other public interest projects may garner public support.

Table 9: Stakeholder Comments

Subject Comment

1 Off-Street Parking

With the funding and construction of the 160 unit parking structure on the east end of

downtown Lexington, will alleviate the need for parking and also spur development

opportunities, such as the Main and Midland development and the Midland Avenue

corridor.


Long term there is a need for an additional 600 parking spaces in the eastern part of

downtown. The Mill and Short St. lot needs a garage Short St. between Upper needs a

connecting garage.

3 Off-Street Parking Financing of parking structure’s remains an issue and we need to address how to

effectively pay for parking structures.

4 Parking Operations More restaurants/businesses downtown should participate in a parking validation program.

5 Parking Meters Partner (UK) with LPA to place meters on Linden Walk on-street parking. Currently this street

is zoned residential and free to park on.

6 Off-Street Parking Create parking structure on the corner of University Dr. and Cooper Dr. or place parking

structure on the Scott St. surface lot

7 Parking Operations Possible partnership with private property owners to take advantage of existing

underutilized parking space.

8 Off-Street Parking The High St. surface lot can be replaced with a parking structure.

9 Off-Street Parking Chevy Chase area has opportunity for a structured lot.

10 Off-Street Parking Underdeveloped campus area west of Limestone, between Virginia Ave and Avenue of

Champions. Consider parking for the Medical Center in this area.

11 Parking Supply 21c Hotel- will require more parking than the 21c Hotel in Louisville, due to the majority of

Lexington visitors using/renting a car. This hotel will utilize the Court House parking garage.

12 Parking Rates Parking downtown is cheap, and the price can afford to be raised. This will support

infrastructure needs… parking convenience justifies a higher cost.

13 Parking Rates Restaurants downtown (many upscale) should help absorb the cost of parking.

14 Off-Street Parking Short St. should have a shared parking structure instead of private surface lots.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

30

15 Parking Supply Parking must be accessible and close to building and must be able to maneuver trucks in

and out of parking area.

16 Parking Supply With limited availability of parking areas, it could become harder to attract events to Rupp

and the convention center.

17 Parking Supply Parking is a concern for the public exposition areas: small exhibitors need accessibility and

parking nearby for the drop off and loading of merchandise.

18 Parking Supply With the eventual development of the Town Branch Commons Project, it could have an

impact on LCC’s parking spaces.

19 Parking Supply Future needs could be a parking structure on the High St. site, with a preference of the LCC

managing the parking structure.

20 Off-Street Parking A 3 level parking structure is preferred customers prefer not to park or go higher than 3

levels.

21 Parking Supply There is a perception problem from the suburban population that they “don’t know where

to park” and “don’t think there is availability”.

22 Parking Supply Owners and business workers want to park within very close proximity to their workplace

23 Parking Supply Parking problems mostly occur at night when there is no parking enforcement. Larger

nighttime market than daytime market.

23 Parking Rates Parking rates are very reasonable, would rather increase night time parking cost than day

time.

24 Residential Parking Need for residential parking permits in Jefferson St. corridor.

25 Residential Parking

Residential parking permits should (continue to) be the role of the Lexington Parking

Authority and not LFUCG. Council members steer the public in the LPA’s direction when

dealing with parking issues.

26 Parking Policy

Parking requirements for business zoned property should not require a specific amount of

parking spaces. This creates underutilized parking.

27 Parking Policy Delivery/loading areas should be enforced by LPA and zoning. This problem could be

solved with alleys.

28 Parking Alternatives Bike lockers and public restrooms could encourage more bike riders.

29 Parking Policy Parking is a public private venture and Lexington’s plan should mimic what has been done

in Greenville, South Carolina.

30 Parking Policy

Short St. should be designated as a parking corridor, to take traffic and parking off of Main

St. and transfer it to Short St. Once this is accomplished, the potential for Church St.

becomes a service street for parking accessibility.

31 Parking Policy

High St. could also become another parking corridor to the south of downtown. You could

then take parking off of High St. which could then be used as another vehicular corridor.

Main St. could then be retaken as a retail corridor.

32 Parking Supply On Main St. you could add parking meters with angular parking on one side. Algonquin

Ave. next to Victorian Square (from Main to Short St.) could include angular parking.

33 Parking Supply A strategy for property condemnation should be discussed in order to make way for

parking decks and structures.

34 Off-Street Parking LPA should construct state of the art parking garage with technological features multi-

faceted 2 level system.


Adequate lighting of parking structures, artwork and technological features are needed to

make the garages more inviting and welcoming. The Helix Garage and its improvements is

a good example of what can be done with a parking structure.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

31

36 Parking Rates The cost to park in Lexington is relatively cheap compared tom other cities.

37 Parking Operations

Property owners and real estate representatives need to work together more closely when

marketing parking as part of its development or leases. There appears to be little or no

interface or not as much as should be. Realtors and developers need to work more closely

with the LPA. LPA can play a broker role in development.

38 Parking Operations Public does not understand that Central parking is not LPA.

39 Off-Street Parking Parking structure that has retail on main level should be more appealing i.e. Festival

Market.

40 Parking Supply We have parking spaces available, not necessarily where a person may want them.

41 Parking Supply

Public Private Partnerships as an alternative to fund parking in the future. Downtown

Lexington will need another new office building in the future and parking will be needed to

meet the demands for that new building.

42 On-Street Parking The public does not like the public metered space where you have to walk to a

designated space to pay for your parking. (LUKE machines)

43 Parking Operations

LPA could consider parking promotions to get local or suburban people to come

downtown to park. Can the LPA develop strategies or promotions to assist restaurants on

slower nights?

44 Parking Supply Studies have shown that people will park in suburban malls and walk further than they will if

downtown when it comes to parking.

45 On-Street Parking

Problem loading elderly adults into a vehicle, especially when street parking is not

available (8 – 10pm enforcement). ADA standards should be in place for ADA marked

parking spaces.

46 Residential Parking No place for service companies to park (ex: Carpet cleaners, Hospice) in order to service

homeowners.

47 On-Street Parking Mill Street On-Street parking is full of employee parkers by 10am. Underutilized private

parking lots. (Liability is a problem)

49 Residential Parking

If homeowners want to host a party, they have no room for guests to park. Can a system

be put in place to distribute guest parking permits? Is there a way to have disposable

parking passes? Print on demand was discussed as one option for visitor permits.

51 Parking Operations Enforcement patrol should be more neighborly and more understanding of some

situations.

53 On-Street Parking Too many signs in some areas and limited sign visibility due to traffic and trees. Better

signage, especially for handicap, could be designed.

54 On-Street Parking The painting of street curbs and striping is a need. Consider diagonal parking to

differentiate parking spots.

55 Parking Operations The Parking Authority could play a role as a goodwill ambassador to broker parking in

neighborhoods.

56 Parking Operations Parking enforcement has been a positive for permitted parking. Parking enforcement and

permits have had a significant impact on addressing UK students parking.

Source: EHI Consultants & Walker Parking Consultants

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

32

PARKING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Based on the analysis of current and future parking adequacy, there is a surplus of parking in

downtown during peak conditions. This section of the report presents opportunities to make

better use of existing parking resources and capitalize on the strengths already in place. In

addition, this section provides information on parking management, an overview of parking

economics, and basic parking geometrics for LFCPA to consider.

There are areas of downtown that temporarily experience high levels of demand that strain

public parking supply, while at the same time nearby areas experience a parking surplus.

Even though available supply may exist within one or two blocks, these localized ‘hot spots’

form perceptions that parking is inadequate. The community can either address the parking

challenges by building more supply or by better managing the existing resources. Many

suburban communities are rethinking how best to address the challenges of parking and

pursuing management solutions before committing to a long-term capital investment. This

course of action may improve perceptions and increase access to available existing supply.

While parking is clearly one important part of downtown’s development, it should not detract

from intrinsic qualities such as a pedestrian-friendly environment, a unique sense of place, and

architectural feel that make downtown Lexington a distinctive and desirable destination. This

unique environment and combination of attractions bring people to downtown. With that in

mind, parking should be viewed as a supportive tool to help make downtown attractions

easier to access.

The following Table provides an overview of how communities are starting to think about

parking planning.

Table 10: Community Approach to Parking Planning

Old Parking Paradigm New Parking Paradigm

“Parking Problem” means inadequate

parking supply.

There are many types of parking

problems (management, pricing,

enforcement, etc.)

Abundant parking supply is always

desirable.

Too much supply is as harmful as too

little. Public resources should be

maximized and sized appropriately.

Parking should be provided free, funded

indirectly, through rents and taxes.

Users should pay directly for parking

facilities. A coordinated pricing

system should value price parking

with on-street the highest.

Innovation faces a high burden of proof

and should only be applied if proven and

widely accepted.

Innovations should be encouraged.

Even unsuccessful experiments often

provide useful information.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

33

Parking management is a last resort, to be

applied only if increasing supply is

infeasible.

Parking management programs

should be applied to prevent parking

problems.


Figure 6: Parking Triangle


SHARED PARKING

Shared parking is defined as parking spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual

land uses without conflict or encroachment. The resurgence of many central cities resulting

from the addition of vibrant office, residential, retail, and entertainment developments

continues to rely heavily on shared parking for economic viability. In addition, mixed-use

projects in many different settings have benefited from shared parking. Numerous benefits of

shared parking exist to a community at large, not the least of which is the environmental

benefit of significantly reducing the square feet of parking provided to serve commercial

development.

It has been Walker’s experience that an overall performance based parking ratio of

approximately 3.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space represents a

generally acceptable level of parking supply for mature business districts with a semi-urban

character such as downtown Lexington. Specific conditions vary from location to location, but

this provides a useful “rule of thumb” to determine the overall adequacy of the available

parking supply.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

34

The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two conditions:

Variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the

individual land uses.

Relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same

auto trip.

For example, office buildings require parking spaces during daytime hours on weekdays, while

restaurants and entertainment venues have peak parking needs during the evening and

weekends. The interplay of land uses in a mixed-use environment also produces a reduction in

overall parking demand. For example, a substantial percentage of patrons at one business

(restaurant) may be employees of another downtown business (office). This phenomenon is

referred to as the “effects of the captive market.” Because these patrons are already parking,

they contribute only once to the number of peak hour parkers. In other words, the parking

demand ratio for individual land uses should be factored downward in proportion to the

captive market support received from neighboring land uses.

Although the interplay of land uses can reduce the overall demand, it should be noted that

there are limits imposed by proximity of land uses to each other and to parking facilities. While

"shared parking" by definition is capitalizing on the different demand period for a combination

of land uses, it is not logical to assume that a hotel (with peak demand in the evening) can

share with an office building (with peak demand during the day) if the two land uses are too

far apart. Human behavior restricts shared parking opportunities by limiting the distance users

are willing to walk from a parking facility to their final destinations.

SHARED PARKING LOCATIONS

In some communities there is an informal version of shared parking. Many owners tacitly allow

public parking in their private lots. Some are lots marked expressly for a given use, but

customers are never booted or towed for using these areas. In other cases, lots are divided

between spaces marked for the businesses on that site and unmarked or “customer only”

spaces that can (informally) be used by anyone despite being associated with a particular

building. This is an informal approach to providing more public parking, and one that requires

little on the part of the owner and LFCPA. The downside of such an approach is that if the lot

is not “advertised” as public, it remains ambiguous and many visitors will avoid using it.

A more thorough approach is to make formal agreements and implement a program to allow

public parking on private lots, and direct cars to these areas. The program would aim to

entice local businesses and property owners to partner with LFCPA for public access to under-

utilized parking supply. Potential program benefits to LFCPA and the downtown community

include, but are not limited to:

Reduce overall investment, both public and private, in expensive new parking supply

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

35

Improve the overall parking experience for all

downtown Lexington visitors, residents, and

employees

Make all parking assets, public and private, more

efficient through increased utilization

Provide a monthly financial return to private parking

supply owners

Assist private parking supply owners market and sell

unused spaces

Given the low occupancy Walker informally observed in some of the surface lots, an LFCPA

shared parking program should be strongly considered even where lot owners are reluctant to

allow overflow onto underutilized portions of their lots during their busy daytime hours. Walker

would recommend LFCPA consider a pilot program in the Chevy Chase neighborhood for

shared parking. There are many roles the LFCPA could play in this program, but LFCPA should

consider:

Monthly Lease (Permit) Parking:

Discuss the possible revenues and benefits of increased proximate parking space

availability to local private parking supply owners

Work with the private supply owners to create a database of private parking space

inventory that is available for public consumption

Create a map of location rates by area or zone that would provide the private supply

owners a guideline for potential monthly rates

Market the available spaces to the public through providing physical signage,

marketing pamphlets, email campaigns, and opening the inventory database up to

the lexpark.org website for potential patrons to search, find, and connect to available

spaces

LFCPA could potentially provide the following services to the private supply owners for a

fee:

o Provide parking permits / hangtags

o Sell the permits for the private supply owner through the current T2 Systems

application

o Track the permit payments and provide collections services for unpaid permit

fees

o Enforce the location with current enforcement staff and tools

o Provide additional insurance coverage

Daily or Evening (Transient) Parking:

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

36

Work with paybyphone and the local private supply owner to open available spaces

up to public transient consumption through the current mobile payment application


marketing pamphlets, email campaigns, the ParkMe application, and the lexpark.org

website

LFCPA could potentially provide the following services to the private supply owners for a

fee:

o Provide parking permits / hangtags

o Track the paybyphone revenues and distribute individual location profits to the

private supply owners

o Enforce the location with current enforcement staff and tools

o Provide additional insurance coverage

FEE-IN-LIEU

A number of cities have tried to find a means to advance the concept of shared parking by

motivating developers or property owners who create the need for additional parking to

contribute some or all of the cost of developing additional parking in municipal facilities. The

fee-in-lieu approach provides the developer with an opportunity to contribute a

predetermined amount for each required parking space not constructed on site.

Funds contributed to the in-lieu account are used by the City to provide an appropriate

number of spaces in municipal parking facilities. Such a fund must be sufficient to cost-

effectively develop adequate parking in reasonable proximity and in a timely manner to each

new development. The City must charge a sufficient fee-in-lieu to cover the cost of land

acquisition and construction, even when it isn’t immediately turning the fee into parking

spaces.

We note that a number of developments are often needed to create the critical mass to

fund a parking facility. Therefore the timing of facility completion may not coincide with that

of the development, which may create a challenge. While in lieu fees are typically set at

a level low enough to encourage developers to pay them rather than engage in

constructing new, exclusive and expensive parking, these fees are typically near or at the

cost, per space, for a municipal parking operation to build new supply.

Walker has analyzed 22 in-lieu programs and found an average fee of $26,000 per space, with

a range of $1,572 per space at the lowest and $66,260 per space at the highest. One in-lieu

program from the data set implemented a graduated fee based on a scale of:

1 to 5 spaces = $15,000 per space



LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

37

26+ spaces = $30,000 per space

The vast majority of these programs included a disclaimer that the fee amount was adjusted

on an as-needed basis based on cost of construction, and many also review and adjust the

per space fee annually.

Existing Fee-in-Lieu Programs:

Town of Davie, FL

Orlando, FL

City of Bend, OR

Corvallis, OR

Town of Jackson, WY

Berkley, CA

Davis, CA

Laguna Beach, CA

Wheaton, IL

Sioux Falls, SD

The Fee-in-Lieu model provides a mechanism for developments to fund shared parking

improvements. This model includes the following components:

Developers are provided an incentive to pay an in-lieu fee to the City to reduce their

construction requirement, which will increase the density and the overall feasibility of

the project;

The City can use the in-lieu fees to finance the construction of shared-use municipal

parking facilities with collected fees to meet project completions in a timely manner

It should be noted that new zoning code changes should be enacted that will effectively

demand construction of 100% to 110% of the zoning requirement (after some shared parking

consideration). Developments will still require some on-site space for visitors and VIPs, but

employees can be accommodated in shared parking facilities.

ZONING CODE REVIEW

Walker reviewed sections of the Lexington Zoning Ordinance that govern parking (articles 8

and 16). There are three primary zoning classifications within the study area, B-2, B-2A, and B-

2B. Walker was asked to provide comments and suggestions to better serve economic

development and protect property owner rights while minimizing waste and promoting

sustainability. The Zoning Ordinance (“Code”) is used by the Planning Department to ensure

sufficient parking is provided for new and re-development in Lexington.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

38

CURRENT REQUIREMENTS

According to Section 8-18(n) Off-Street Parking, the B-2 district requires parking be provided at

a rate of 25% of the least parking area required in any zone. The B-2A and B-2B districts do not

require off-street parking, unless residential use for 25 or more units is proposed (section 8-

19(n)). Off-street parking is a conditional use in the B-2B district, requiring a special permit

(section 8-19(d)).

RECOMMENDED ZONING PARKING CODE CHANGES/CONSIDERATIONS

The zoning provisions used by Lexington are fairly comprehensive and thorough. The reduced

parking requirement in the B-2A zone and virtually no parking requirement in the B-2 and B-2B

zones provide an economic incentive for continued development by reducing potential

upfront development costs for parking. Discussions with the city planning department staff

indicate that present policies on reduced or no parking requirements have been working well

for some time.

As a point of discussion and consideration, we introduce the following issues and strategies

that Lexington may consider in order to further enhance the current code.

PROHIBITION OF NEW SURFACE PARKING WITHIN THE CBD

As an alternate approach, some cities have gone as far as prohibiting the development of

new off-street parking anywhere in the downtown to help achieve the goals of New Urbanism

and Smart Growth planning goals, and then collect fees-in-lieu to build municipal parking,

usually on the periphery. While prohibiting all off-street parking in a CBD may not be the

choice of every community, prohibiting new surface parking lots can improve the “pedestrian

ambience” of the downtown.

Based in part on the previously discussed shared parking concepts, Walker makes the

following recommendations to better promote shared parking within the study area. These

also are based in part on “Recommended Zoning Ordinance Provisions” published by the

National Parking Association.

Walker strongly recommends that the Code allow reduction of the required number

of parking spaces based upon a shared parking study performed in accordance

with the latest edition of Shared Parking, by a qualified traffic or parking consultant.

The process may be facilitated by prescribing acceptable mode adjustments,

particularly for employee parking, based upon local census data on modal splits.

The ordinance should continue to set a maximum reduction in parking requirements

for shared parking that can be administratively approved without a public hearing

or approval by the zoning board.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

39

The parking requirement may be reduced or eliminated by the payment of the Fee-

in-Lieu of parking. This fee would be established and occasionally updated by vote

of the city council, for each space not provided on-site. This fee should be

equivalent to the cost of construction of a structured parking space.

No changes are recommended for the reduction in parking in each zone.

Note: The previous recommendations are not represented to be suitable as written for

inclusion in an amendment to the existing Code, nor are they represented to be exhaustive.

Walker Parking and its consultants do not represent these points as a legal document or model

ordinance.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)

As population growth continues to place greater demand on transportation systems,

strategies that focus on operations rather than increased capacity will become more and

more a part of the solution to future problems. With this realization, many cities have begun to

employ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs to improve operations. The

general idea of these programs is to reduce the number of automobile trips in a given area by

offering incentives and providing alternatives to driving alone.

In order to develop and market successful TDM Programs defined areas, such as central

business districts, create Transportation Management Associations (TMA). These public-private

partnerships provide the institutional structure to develop and employ the strategies best

suited for a particular area. One funding strategy, utilized by a majority of TMAs, is the

collection of membership dues. These annual dues, based on the number of individuals a

participating member employs, typically account for an average of one third of a TMA’s

revenue.

TDM strategies implemented by TMAs focus on reducing work-related single occupancy

vehicle trips. These strategies provide incentives for individuals to choose different modes of

transportation such as transit, carpooling, bicycles or walking when traveling to work. With the

right mix of TDM alternatives and strategies, vehicle trips can be significantly reduced in

relation to background conditions. Various marketing techniques such as distributing free

transit maps, offering “free transit days”, and putting up promotional posters can help attract

more riders. TMAs can also encourage ridership by offering monetary incentives in paid

parking areas, as well as other specific strategies to employees who ride transit to work.

SHARED VEHICLE PROGRAMS

Car-sharing is a program that has been very successful in a number of North American cities.

The basic concept of this strategy is to provide an option for convenient vehicular travel

without owning a car. It provides a medium between having no vehicle and personal vehicle

ownership. These programs offer access to a fleet of cars that can be used on an hourly basis.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

40

After signing up online and reserving a car, customers simply show up at the lot and drive off

with a car. Many municipal parking operations will dedicate, or reserve, parking spaces in

strategic areas in order to provide the most convenient pick-up and return locations for the

shared vehicles.

Walker recommends that the LFCPA be prepared to reserve on-street parking spaces that

could be dedicated for car and ride sharing providers. This could also include reduced or free

access to LFCPA managed parking garages in order to minimize the impact to the limited on-

street parking supply.

BICYCLE RACKS

Many employers have trouble covering shifts due to their

employees’ lack of transportation. An alternative to expanding

the bus schedule or shared vehicle services is using bicycles. By

providing bicycle racks either on-street or at employment centers,

employers can encourage individuals who live in close proximity to

their places of work to bike or walk.

Installing bicycle racks alone, will not solve transportation issues,

partly because safety will also need to be addressed in tandem.

Lighting, security, bike paths, and signage all need to be

considered when creating a bike program. Promotional

opportunities can include, but are not limited to local bike shops

run seminars to teach children and adults alike in order to ensure

that biking remain a viable alternative transportation source.

Cities where a successful Bike Rack program exists:

Madison, Wisconsin

Chicago, Illinois

Portland, Oregon

Santa Cruz, California

Bloomington, Indiana

WAYFINDING / SIGNAGE

We recommend implementing a comprehensive signage program to maximize visitor

awareness to public parking locations. The signage improvements should be prepared in

conjunction with any enhancements to the parking resources, in addition to any streetscape

improvements along the corridor roadways. As is true with any good communications

medium, signs should be brief, precise and appropriate, such as “Public Parking” or “Two Hour

https://madison.bcycle.com/

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/dataset/bike_racks.html

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34772

http://taps.ucsc.edu/commute-options/bikes/index.html

https://bloomington.in.gov/documents/viewDocument.php?document_id=5756

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

41

Parking.” Further, the signage should guide the driver from the main thoroughfares into the

parking lots.

Each parking area has its own set of wayfinding/signage requirements. These requirements

present specific questions concerning the needs and concerns of the users to be answered

during the design of the signs, including:

What are the points at which

information is needed?

What information is needed?

How should this information be

presented?

Will there be a high percentage

of first-time visitors to the district,

or is the parking supply used by

the same people every day?

Are there special sign requirements for accessible parking

or bilingual patrons?

Are there choices in traffic patterns that must be presented to drivers such as directions

to parking near the entrance to an anchor tenant or exits to different streets?

It is also important that general rules for sign design and placement be followed when

planning the streetscape improvements.

All signage should have a general organizing principle consistently evident in the

system.

Direction signage for both pedestrians and vehicles must be continuous (i.e., repeated

at each point of choice) until the destination is reached. Very minimal signage exists at

the point of parking that directs patrons back to the merchants.

Signs should be placed in consistent and therefore predictable locations.

More sophisticated space count signage could be incorporated into the existing off-street

garage PARCS system. Many municipalities are considering dynamic space availability signs

in coordination with wayfinding signage at central access points and corridors. For example,

at the east and west ends of Vine and Main, dynamic signs could be placed advertising

current LFCPA garage space availability and incorporate associated directional signage to

navigate parkers to specific garage locations. The space availability information could also

be added to the lexpark.org website, showing current garage space availability, while also

incorporating an interactive map that provides directional information guiding users to the

garages with space availability.

NEW PARKING GARAGE ANALYSIS

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

42

There are cases where parking management alone is not the solution. While an organized

parking system provides the framework for future growth, additional supply in the form of a

parking structure may be required to support new development. It is rare that a community

would build a fully subsidized, stand-alone parking ramp without clear plans for new

commercial development. The preferred approach is to develop new parking in coordination

with highly dense mixed-use projects. This approach maximizes development space by

integrating parking into the development program.

This section provides a general overview of basic parking economics that must be considered

when planning for a new parking structure. A brief discussion is provided on capital costs,

operating expenses, breakeven pricing, structural repair budget, and minimum parking

dimensions.

CAPITAL COSTS

Walker understands that future parking improvements may be developed as a stand-alone

parking ramp or incorporated with the design of a future mixed-use building. A parking facility

that is built into a project, as either the upper or lower floors of that development compared to

a stand-alone parking facility, requires that the garage use short-span construction. Short-

span construction uses an increased number of columns to support the weight of the structural

elements above it.

In short-span construction, the column grid is roughly 30 feet on center. The efficiencies of

short-span construction are less than long-span construction because of the column

projections that interfere with the parking layout. A typical short-span construction garage has

design efficiency in the range of 400-450 square feet per space, depending upon the

geometrics of the footprint.

If the ramp is a stand-alone structure, utilizing long-span construction, the columns can be

located at the front of the parking stalls so that there are no column projections. The

efficiency of the garage can be increased to an approximate range of 315 to 350 square feet

per space, depending upon the geometrics of the footprint. The increase in efficiency is due

to the ability to increase the number of parking spaces inside the same footprint.

A general guideline for determining the conceptual estimate of probable cost for a parking

ramp is to apply a cost per space figure to the target capacity. The cost of parking ramps vary

greatly based on location, architectural features, sustainability features, and whether the

facility is above or below-grade. A reasonable range for an above-grade, 200-300 space

parking facility is $14,000 to $18,000 per space, assuming long-span construction. The cost per

space can increase significantly when built below ground, or includes multi-use retail and

office space.

OPERATING COSTS

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

43

Expenses can vary dramatically since these depend on a number of independent variables.

Traditional expenses can include costs associated with labor, utilities, daily maintenance,

supplies, management and accounting, and insurance. Key factors in determining operating

costs include the proposed hours of operations, type of parking access and revenue controls,

and the application of active or passive security measures.

The operating expenses for a parking facility are typically presented on a cost per space basis.

Walker’s 2012 research indicates actual operating expenses that range from $150 to over

$1,000 per space annually. The operating costs are lower at facilities that do not maintain

revenue and access controls, and have limited hours of operation. Conversely, operating

costs are higher at facilities that are staffed, that monitor access to the property with revenue

and access controls, and operate 24 hours 7 days a week. All facilities require some degree

of daily janitorial service that includes trash removal, sweeping, and minor repairs and

maintenance such as lighting replacement. These responsibilities are often delegated to a

city’s public works department, if a parking department does not exist.

STRUCTURAL REPAIR BUDGET

For new parking structures, in addition to operating expenses, Walker highly recommends that

funds be set-aside in a sinking fund, on a regular basis, to cover structural maintenance costs

at a minimum of $75 per structured space annually. Once a sinking fund is established,

contributions to this fund accumulate over time and are available to cover structural

maintenance and structural repairs. Even the best designed and constructed parking facility

requires structural maintenance. For example, expansion joints need to be replaced and

concrete invariably deteriorates over time and needs to be repaired to ensure safety and to

prevent further damage.

The structural maintenance cost typically represents the largest portion of the total

maintenance budget. Property owners tend to grossly underestimate the structural

maintenance cost and do not budget adequately for timely corrective actions that must be

performed to cost effectively extend the service life of the structure. The cost of structural

maintenance is relatively small considering the potential waste of the improvements

associated with the failure to perform proper maintenance on a timely basis.

Periodic structural maintenance includes items such as patching concrete spalls and de-

laminations in floor slabs, beams, columns, walls, etc. In many instances there are

maintenance costs associated with the topping membranes, the routing and sealing of joints

and cracks, and the expansion joint repairs. The cost of these repairs can vary significantly

from one structure to another. The factors that will impact the maintenance cost include, but

are not limited to: the value the owner places on the maintenance of the facility, the local

climate, and the age of the structure.

MINIMUM PARKING STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

44

There are several variables and options to consider when selecting the type of structure,

including the desired traffic flow (one-way or two-way), the type of users, the Level of Service

(LOS), and height restrictions. The following table provides the minimum dimensions for two

types of structures, as well as a variation on the level of service. Characteristics of a single-

threaded helix include two-bays, two-way traffic flow, and 90-degree parking, with the

motorist ascending one floor for every 360-degree revolution. By contrast, a double-threaded

helix features angled parking and one-way traffic flow, providing a continuous travel path up

and then down through the structure. In a double-threaded helix, the motorist climbs two

levels for every 360-degree revolution, thus requiring a longer site than a single-threaded helix.

Figure 7: Minimum Parking Structure Dimensions


Parking structures could be built on smaller footprints. However, implied in this discussion is the

desirability to achieve a relatively efficient parking structure design, as measured by square

feet of floor area per each parking space.

WALKING DISTANCE

Pedestrian Safety involves two factors: the ability of vehicles to move to and from the area

without pedestrian conflict and, the ease of use by pedestrians with consideration of the

walking path and distances to and from the facility.

Walking distance varies based on the patron user group as well as the environment of the

surrounding area in which the patron must walk. To aid in estimating the appropriate walking

distance, a Level of Service (LOS) rating system is used for evaluating appropriate walking

distances based on specific criteria. Several factors impact the walking distance that a

typical person will consider reasonable. These include climate, perceived security, lighting,

and whether it is through a surface lot or inside a parking structure. LOS “A” is considered the

best or ideal, LOS “B” is good, LOS “C” is average and LOS “D” is below average but minimally

acceptable.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

45

The following table includes the level of service walking distances for various parking

environments. Walker applies the level of service for outdoor/uncovered parking when

considering shared parking opportunities in Downtown Lexington.

Table 11: LOS Conditions: Walking Distances

Source: Parking, Butcher, T. and Smith, M.

In comparison, the parking used during typical days at shopping centers is designed to

provide LOS A and B, while the parking that only gets used for a few hours on the busiest days

of the year might be designed for LOS C. Additionally, employee parking at a shopping mall is

most often provided at LOS C, due to the willingness of employees to walk farther than

customers and the desire to provide customers with the most proximate parking options. We

recommend striving to provide adequate parking to specific user groups using the following

LOS guidelines.

VISITORS

Because visitors are most likely unfamiliar with the area and/or are short-term parkers, we

recommend providing walking distance LOS A to all visitors.

EMPLOYEES

We recommend striving to provide LOS C and/or D to employees, which park for longer

periods and may not require the use their vehicle throughout the day.

POTENTIAL PARKING STRUCTURE SITES

The study area was evaluated to determine the optimum locations for a parking structure

based on independent Walker evaluation, conversations with LFCPA staff, recommendations

from the Parking Study Report 2014 (Draft), and the current parking surplus. As the city grows

and parking demand increases, it is important to plan the parking to grow with the expansion,

in order to continue to meet the growing parking demands.

Level of Service Conditions A B C D

Outdoor/Uncovered 400 ft. 800 ft. 1,200 ft. 1,600 ft.

Through Surface Lot 350 700 1,050 1,400

Outdoor/Covered 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Climate Controlled 1,000 2,400 3,800 5,200

Inside Parking Facility 300 600 900 1,200

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

46

Zone 1 includes Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16

Zone 2 includes Blocks 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 37, and 38

Zone 3 includes Blocks 30, 31, 32, 35, and 39

Zone 4 includes Blocks 6, 7, 11, 12, 21, and 22

Zone 5 includes Blocks 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, and 36

Zone 6 is Block 41

Zone 7 is Block 40

Figure 8: Potential Structured Parking Locations by Zone

Source: Walker Parking Consultants SITE CONSTRAINTS

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

47

Potential high acquisition costs.

Potential significant street changes to surrounding area.

Potential small site footprint that could increase the number of levels.

Potential location in the same zone as the existing LFCPA managed garages.

Potential high demolition costs.

Potential long walking distance from primary drivers for downtown visitors.

Potential interruption of downtown green spaces.

Potential low monthly parking rates which could result in lower revenues.

DESIGN CAPACITIES

Estimated potential capacities range from 600 to 650± spaces.

Estimated potential heights range from 5 to 9 levels.

ESTIMATED RELATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Estimated potential costs range from $8,625,000 to $10,838,750.

o The estimates do not include potential land acquisition costs.

Table 12: Alternative Site Matrix


City of Lexington

Alternative Site Matrix

Structured Parking

Criteria Weight Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 5 #1 Zone 5 #2

Added Net Capacity 25.0% 7 10 8 9 7

Revenue Projection 15.0% 7 6 5 5 7

Construction Cost 20.0% 7 5 7 6 8

Demolition Costs 10.0% 8 6 8 8 6

Parking Displacement 5.0% 6 6 7 5 5

Location 20.0% 9 5 4 4 8

Vehicular Access 5.0% 5 6 5 6 6

Average Score 100% 7.4 6.6 6.4 6.4 7.2

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

48

MATRIX COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The matrix was developed to assist LFCPA for individual and collective ranking of the potential

parking garage locations. The previously identified parking site alternatives are evaluated on

the basis of a number of subjective criteria. Each criterion is scored relative to the others. A

value (10 = excellent, down to 1 = poor) is awarded to each. Next, each criterion is weighted

by percentage. The criteria used to evaluate the alternatives are as follows:

ADDED NET CAPACITY 25%

Considers the total number of new spaces to be added for each site less the number of

spaces removed, if applicable, in order to arrive at a net new supply number.

REVENUE PROJECTION 15%

Estimated financial performance based on site characteristics and parking demand drivers.

CONSTRUCTION COST 20%

Total estimated per space construction, design fee, and other costs multiplied by the total

spaces for each location.

DEMOLITION COST 10%

Total estimated cost to remove existing buildings, parking garages, surface lots, or other

existing site structures.

PARKING DISPLACEMENT 5%

Considers the impact on current users if supply needs to be removed for short- or long-term

periods of time.

LOCATION 20%

The ability of a solution to satisfy parking needs within a reasonable walking distance.

VEHICULAR ACCESS 5%

The ability of vehicles to move to and from the area without conflicting negatively with traffic

patterns.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

49

PARKING POLICIES AND PRACTICES

The Lexington-Fayette County Parking Authority is a very sophisticated parking operation that

incorporates many operational and management best practices, utilizes the latest

enforcement, meter, and PARCS technologies, and consistently invests in their parking assets.

As evidenced by the following programs and investments:

Installation of leading PARCS technologies with the new Scheidt & Bachmann

management system and equipment, including dynamic space availability signage

Significant recent investments in the long-term viability of parking structures through

concrete and structural repairs

Utilization of T2 System’s Flex Permit and Enforcement management software, as well as

their mobile handheld enforcement suite

A well designed website that conveys very detailed and thorough information on a

wide range of parking related topics

ParkMe app integration for dynamic space availability on mobile devices

Various “Green” initiatives, including:

o Recycled paper for letters and forms

o Electric and hybrid enforcement vehicles

o New energy efficient lighting in off-street facilities

o Non-paper ticket (chip based) PARCS equipment

o Solar powered meters

o And many more…

An informative and interactive Facebook page

Programs that help engage the community to use parking to solve larger problems in

unique and interesting ways, setting examples for other municipalities

o For example, recent canned food drives for parking ticket amnesty to help the

homeless that received national attention.

The following sections focus on ways that LFCPA can continue to improve parking operations.

These solutions generally focus on the effective use of the existing parking supply, where

improvements to the system can be accomplished via pricing changes to appropriately value

high demand spaces. The analysis also covers the relationship between on-street vs. off-street

rates, as well as possible increased hours of meter and enforcement operations in order to

better distribute evening parking demand.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

50

GRADUATED FINES

The goal of fining violators is not to increase revenues or fill city coffers; it is to keep parking

spaces available for short-term demand. Current parking fines, if too low, will encourage

abuse by members of the resident and business communities. The idea behind graduated

fines is to deter repeat violators and change their behavior, thus freeing parking space in the

study area for the intended users.

Walker recommends a graduated fine schedule based on the number of violations within a

specific time frame. The following fines are one way of transforming behavior of the current

repeat violators.

1st Violation $15.00

2nd Violation (within 60 days) $40.00

3rd Violation “ “ $80.00

4th Violation “ “ $120.00 plus vehicle booting or towing

Consideration should be given to an incentive system where the initial fine is set at a higher

fee. If the violator pays the fine within a certain period of time a discount is then applied. For

example, under the current system, someone might receive a $15 fine, and if not paid within

10 days the citation would escalate to $30. Under the incentive system, the initial fine would

be set higher, $30, already incorporating the late fee. However, if the fine is paid within a

given period of time, 10 days, a discount of $15 is applied bringing the actual fine collected to

$15.

CURRENT CITATION RATES

In Lexington, citation fines are currently set at $15 for Overtime Limit, Expired Meter, and Zone

citations. Although the fine amount does double if not paid within the first 10 days, the initial

amount was found to be lower than a number of comparative cities. Seven cities, chosen

based on a number of factors, including but not limited to population size, regional location,

and similar university proximities were, used to compare rates.

These seven cities averaged base rates for Overtime Limits / Zone violations at $25.00 and

Expired Meter violations were just over $24.00. Increasing citation fine rates to be more in-line

with comparative markets could increase compliance, ultimately reducing the number of

violations written while at the same time increase valuable space availability.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

51

Table 13: Citation Rate Comparison


PARKING RATES

In municipal parking systems there is a direct relationship between pricing and occupancy.

This is one of the best tools the parking authority has to distribute demand across existing

resources in order to effectively manage supply. Over time, this pricing relationship should be

managed and balanced in order to achieve optimum occupancy across the different

parking supply options. Optimization is generally considered to be between 80-90% peak

occupancy evenly distributed across the available supply.

As described in the supply and demand analysis, the LFCPA parking garages were observed

to have an effective occupancy of just over 81%, while the non-LFCPA locations experienced

59% effective occupancy. Some of this discrepancy can be attributed to the price

differences between the parking options.

The hourly parking rate analysis includes ten cities, all exhibiting one or many similarities to

Lexington. The comparison found that the current hourly and permit parking rates are

currently low. The rates are low by comparison to the local market, the ten chosen

municipalities, and the low-end of national averages.

City Population Expired Meter Overtime / Zone

Madison, WI 240,323 25.00$ 25.00$

Bloomington, IN 82,575 20.00$ 20.00$

Louisv ille, KY 253,128 15.00$ 15.00$

Cincinnati, OH 297,517 45.00$ 45.00$

Boulder, CO 103,166 15.00$ 15.00$

Ann Arbor, MI 117,025 20.00$ 25.00$

Pittsburgh, PA 305,841 30.00$ 30.00$

Average 24.29$ 25.00$

Lexington, KY 308,428 15.00$ 15.00$

Difference ($9.29) ($10.00)

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

52

Table 14: Hourly Rate Comparison (Comparative Reference Set)


ON-STREET RATES

As outlined, on-street hourly rates are currently lower than garage and surface lot hourly rates.

The majority of on-street meters are priced at $1.00 per hour and located within 1 hour, 2 hour,

or 4 hour maximum time zones. Walker often recommends that the on-street supply, for high

demand areas, be priced $.50 to $1.00 more per hour than the comparative off-street per

hour pricing.

Currently, daytime on-street peak occupancy was observed to be 413 vehicles parked for an

effective occupancy of 59%, much less than the 80-90% optimization. Based on this data

alone, increasing the on-street pricing to be higher than off-street pricing is likely not

warranted in the near term.

However, comparing on-street rates to both the local market, reference market set, and the

national average increases to on-street hourly price points are warranted. Going forward,

Walker recommends scheduling incremental increases at regular annual or bi-annual intervals,

starting with a $.25-$.50 increase immediately. To help distribute on-street demand across the

entire supply, an associated decrease in, or simply not increasing the price for the lowest

utilized areas should also be considered.

OFF-STREET TRANSIENT RATES

According to Colliers International’s North America Central Business District 2012 Parking Rate

Survey the low-end average for hourly parking is $2.71, which is equal to the average

structured parking rate for the ten municipalities evaluated for this study. By comparison,

City Population Hourly Permits Hourly Permits Hourly 1 Hourly 2 Hourly 3

Madison, WI 240,323 1.50$ 250.00$ 1.50$ 150.00$ 1.00$ 1.20$ 1.75$

Bloomington, IN 82,575 0.50$ 67.00$ 1.00$ 67.00$ 1.00$

Louisv ille, KY 253,128 2.00$ 90.00$ $5 / day 70.00$ 1.25$ 1.50$

Cincinnati, OH 297,517 3.85$ 146.16$ 7.59$ 112.76$ 1.50$ 2.00$

Boulder, CO 103,166 1.25$ 69.40$ 1.25$ 69.40$ 1.25$

Ann Arbor, MI 117,025 1.20$ 147.50$ 1.50$ 128.33$ 1.50$

Pittsburgh, PA 305,841 3.94$ 225.83$ 4.35$ 215.95$ 1.00$ 2.00$ 3.00$

Nashv ille, TN 601,222 4.77$ 123.55$ 6.69$ 138.53$ 1.50$

Indianapolis, IN 852,866 5.50$ 127.00$ 5.53$ 73.19$ 1.50$

Kansas City, MO 467,007 2.60$ 70.00$ 3.33$ 52.50$ 1.50$ 3.00$

Average 2.71$ 131.64$ 3.64$ 107.77$ 1.30$ 1.94$ 2.38$

Lexington, KY 308,428 2.00$ 63.75$ 2.60$ 82.33$ 0.50$ 1.00$ 1.00$

Difference ($0.71) ($67.89) ($1.04) ($25.44) ($0.80) ($0.94) ($1.38)

Parking Structures Parking Lots On-Street

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

53

LFCPA managed public garages currently charge $1.00 per half hour, or $2.00 per hour. Non-

LFCPA managed off-street public parking options averaged $3.00 per hour. The LFCPA

managed garages are ($.71) below this study’s comparative reference set and the national

average. They are also ($1.00) below the privately managed local market.

The Colliers study also provides a low-end average for all day parking at $9.64. The LFCPA

managed garage maximum per day rate is currently $8.00. This puts the current max daily

rate ($1.64) below the low-end national average and ($1.33) below local non-LFCPA garages.

Off-street parking rates range from $2.00 to $5.00 for the first hour, with LFCPA managed

garages priced at $2.00 for the first hour. It is recommended that LFCPA garage rates by

raised to at least $2.50 per hour, with an associated increase to maximum daily cost between

$9-10.

Table 15: Local Market Rate Comparison


OFF-STREET PERMIT RATES

For garage permit pricing, LFCPA managed garages are also below the local private market,

reference group set, and national average. As illustrated in the table below the non-reserved

rate for LFCPA garages averaged $63.75. The actual rates for LFCPA garages ranged from

$55.00 to $75.00, while the local non-LFCPA garage permits ranged from $65.00 to $85.00. It is

recommended that LFCPA managed locations implement a $10 increase to monthly permits,

starting with the Victorian Square garage immediately.

Table 16: Permit Rate Comparison


Location Type 1st HR All Day Evening Monthly

On-Street Avg $1.00 $0.00

Primary Surface Lot Avg $3.17 $6.11 $4.00 $82.33

Non-LFCPA Garage Avg $3.00 $9.33 $3.33 $72.88

LFCPA Garage Avg $2.00 $8.00 $3.00 $63.75

National Low-end Avg $2.71 $9.64 $108.06

Location Type LFCPA Non-LFCPA Garages Local Surface Lots Reference Set National Average

Permits Avg $63.75 $72.88 $82.33 $119.71 $108.60

Difference ($9.13) ($18.58) ($55.96) ($44.85)

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

54

To attract additional monthly parkers, it is recommended that

LFCPA introduce new permit options for LFCPA garages to

increase off-street parking supply utilization, and better manage

demand by time of day:

If a parking garage has low evening demand, consider:

o ‘Evening Only Permits’ – For example these permits

would be programmed for use during 6:00 PM to 6:00

AM only and price points should be set very low to

capture a large audience. This permit is ideal for

evening employees and should be heavily marketed

to local restaurants and bars.

If a parking garage has low daytime demand, consider:

o ‘Parking Debit Cards’ – this type of permit would offer a parker a decrementing

value card (by dollar or by use) that is cheaper than the full daily rate. This

permit type is ideal for regular downtown visitors or daytime employees that only

drive downtown a few times each week.

o Less expensive, standard business hour only permits, or ‘Day Permits’ – this type of

permit would be ideal for office employees working standard day shifts. These

permits would be less expensive as compared to a 24/7 access permit, but could

be configured to charge a fee to the permit holder if they use the permit outside

of standard business hours, for example 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

A ‘Frequent Parker Program’:

o Similar to Parking Debit Cards, this permit option can track usage and provide

incentives for LFCPA garage use. For example, every ten parking purchases the

frequent parker receives 1 free.

GARAGE OPERATING EXPENSES

An Operating expense analysis, for the current garages, was completed comparing the

existing expense structure to the Walker database with over 300 Profit & Loss statements. This

analysis compares expense categories, as a percent of total operating expenses, for the

LFCPA managed garages against national averages.

Overall the garages are operating at $474 of operating expense per space. Including

administrative overhead, the average total expense per space for LFCPA garages is $546

which is slightly lower than the Walker’s Calculated Average (WCA) of $720 per space.

However, there are specific categories that have been found to be outside of expected

expense per space. The following figures are expressed as a per space dollar amount, by

expense category, before any dollar amounts are moved to Capital Expenses. LFCPA

expense per space dollar amounts are a combined averaged percentages from 2013 and

2014.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

55

Table 17: Expense per Space Matrix


Payroll is currently at $252, 39% below the WCA of 45%. This is due to a significant drop

in 2014 (34%) over 2013 (44%).

o Compensation Insurance at 4.8% was at the low-end of industry standards which

range from 4.75% to 11%.

o Payroll Taxes in 2014 were 11%, slightly higher than the industry standard of 10%.

Security was significantly below the WCA. LFCPA Security expense category was at

$31, nearly 25% of the WCA of $120.

Management Fees of $30 were in line with the WCA of $52. Both categories come to

an average of 6% of Operating Expenses.

Banking averaged $14, slightly higher than the WCA of $6. This expense category is out

of line due to an unidentified increase in 2014 ($23) over 2013 ($5) which was more in-

line with the WCA.

The Supplies category was at $18 slightly lower than the WCA of $23.

Liability insurance was at 4%, slightly higher than the WCA of 3%.

Snow Removal averaged $15, which is higher than the WCA $3. The majority of this

overage is due to significant snow fall in 2014 ($25) over 2013 ($4) which was more in-

line with the WCA.

Utilities expense was slightly higher than average cost per space, currently at $83 for

LFCPA, as compared to the WCA of $72. However, this figure was much lower than a

regional comparison, which has a WCA of $95.

Expense Category WCA Above Grade Midwest LFCPA

Payroll & Benefits 352$ 324$ 352$ 252$

Security 120$ 111$ 141$ 31$

Management Fees 52$ 45$ 45$ 30$

Accounting/ Banking 6$ 5$ 6$ 14$

Supplies 23$ 21$ 36$ 18$

Insurance 30$ 28$ 19$ 22$

Snow Removal 3$ 5$ 2$ 15$

Utilities - All 72$ 72$ 95$ 83$

Maintenance 48$ 51$ 103$ 75$

Misc/ Other Exp 14$ 15$ 16$ 6$

Total Cost Per Space 720$ 677$ 816$ 546$

Expense Per Space

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

56

o Electricity costs accounted for 98% of this expense category. The kw / hr in

LFCPA was determined to be $0.070958, which is on the low-end of the industry

range of $0.0626 - $0.2154.

Maintenance was also higher than the average cost per space, currently at $75 for

LFCPA. However, this figure is much lower than the regional comparison, which has a

WCA of $103.

Misc. / Other expenses were lower LFCPA averaged $6, while the WCA was $14.

ON-STREET HOURS OF OPERATION

On-street spaces are usually the highest demand

areas within a downtown municipal setting, regardless

of the time of day. Combine this high demand with

free evening on-street parking in a thriving and active

community and the result is a stressed parking supply.

A stressed on-street evening parking supply is a

significant challenge facing the Lexington parking

system.

As discussed in the previous section, there is a direct

relationship between price and occupancy, which is

clearly evident in this situation. This relationship

between price, demand, and occupancy is very

clear after 5:00 PM. The highest on-street occupancies were observed to be between 4:00 PM

and 8:00 PM. As mentioned, one factor contributing to this demand is due to a concentration

of bars, restaurants, and entertainment activities. This concentration is generally bound by

Broadway, W. 2nd St., Limestone St., and Main St. A few areas further east on Main St. also

experience some increased demand.

Another driver is the disparity in pricing. On-street parking after 5:00 PM is currently free, while

the vast majority of all other off-street options still charge a reduced evening rate of $2 to $4.

As the evening heat map and picture will attest, the off-street options during this time

experience very low utilization, while on-street spaces are

often full.

The added on-street hours of operation could receive

significant push back from local business owners, especially

from restaurants, bars, and evening events. Evening free on-

street parking is also a marketing tool used by LFCPA to entice

downtown visitors to the core of Lexington and experience the

great evening attractions. As an example, the LFCPA

Facebook page has evening free parking advertised on the

home page. Another challenge with increasing the hours of

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

57

operations is the perception that LFCPA is simply looking for more ways to increase revenue,

and not that the effort is an attempt to increase the availability of on-street, high value

spaces.

One option to help continue promote free parking downtown after 5:00 PM, while also better

managing on-street availability during this time, would be to offer 2 hours free in the LFCPA

garages after 5:00 PM. This would allow LFCPA to continue marketing free evening parking,

but also promote off-street public garage options. At the same time, on-street hours of

operations could increase to the recommended 8:00 PM in order to promote turnover, reduce

downtown employee’s parking on-street, and increase overall space availability.

Figure 9: Evening On-Street Parking Block Face Heat Map (10/10/2014)


LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

58

Walker recommends that LFCPA extend hours of paid on-street meters and enforcement from

9 hours (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) to, at a minimum 12 hours (8:00 AM to 8:00 PM). This change,

along without any associated rate change, is expected to provide a 27% revenue increase.

At the same time, an evening rate change to free parking for the first 2 hours should be

considered. As mentioned, the anticipated revenue impact to the LFCPA garages would be

very low, while still allowing the operation to provide some free evening parking.

Enforcement has the potential to increase as a result of the expanded times as well, gaining

32% in total revenue. It is not recommended that the enforcement citation increase be used

for planning purposes as it is based on assuming people will break the rules, however, it has

been included based on historical performance.

There would be an associated total expense increase as well, however it is not considered to

be significant based on the existing infrastructure, equipment, and systems already in place.

On-street operating expenses been calculated at an overall 18% increase. Table 22 outlines

the improvements in detail.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

59

Table 18: Estimated Year 1 Meter / Enforcement Revenue (12 HR)


2014 2015

On-Street Meters

Parking Spaces 1,098 1,098

Average Utilization 30.5% 30.5%

Hours/Day Charged for Parking 9 12

Total Meter Receipts 782,794 1,043,725

Permit Sales 62,099 62,099

Bag Rental Fees 95,958 95,958

Total On-Street Parking Revenue 940,851 1,201,782

Enforcement Revenue Calculation

All Citations Collected

Paid Enforcement Tickets 34,944 46,592

Total Utilized Hours 782,794 1,043,725

Ticket Fee (Includes All Fines and Fees) 20.2 20.2

Booting Fees 27,390 27,390

Enforcement Revenue 732,712 967,819

OPERATING REVENUES

Total Operating Revenues

Parking Meters 940,851 1,201,782

Parking Violations 732,712 967,819

Total Operating Revenues 1,673,563 2,169,601

OPERATING EXPENSES

On-Street and Enforcement

Payroll & Benefits 243,665 249,757

Operating Expenses 150,017 153,767

On-Street 822,114 970,095

Other & Misc. Expenses 0 0

Total Operating Expenses 1,215,796 1,373,619

Net Operating Income 457,767 795,982

% Growth -0.9% 73.9%

% Margin 27.4% 36.7%

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

60

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

PROJECTED OPERATING REVENUE

Transient parking revenue is determined by two variables: projected transient demand and

the average transient parking rate (fee). The parking demand model applies the distribution

of short-term and long-term transient patrons to determine the number of patrons in each

category. Once the demand for each type of transient patron is determined, Walker

multiplied the projected parking demand by an average hourly parking fee. By analyzing the

historical length of stay at similar facilities, then applying the projected rate schedule to the

length of stay distribution, the weighted average hourly parking fee is computed. With the

two key variables identified, the transient parking revenue is calculated accordingly.

Similar to transient parking revenue, lease revenue is determined by two variables: projected

leases (monthly permits) sold and the lease parking rate. Typically, it is in the best interest for a

parking facility owner to maximize the available parking spaces and not reserve or dedicate

spaces that cannot be sold more than once. None of the spaces will be dedicated or

reserved.

Other revenue categories are considered when evaluating an entire parking system. For

example, large revenue categories like pre-pay events and validations have also been

included in the revenue projections.

PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES

The calculation of annual operating expenses for the LFCPA parking system is based upon

local market research, prior annual expenses, an estimation of annual inflation, and Walker’s

database of parking facilities. Operating expenses include salaries and benefits, professional

and contract costs, security, utilities, insurance, auto, operating supplies, routine repairs, snow

removal, equipment maintenance, phone and internet, professional dues/subscriptions, bank

fees, and miscellaneous expenses.

The operating expenses are based on the assumption that all parking facilities are outfitted

with parking access and revenue control equipment (PARCS). The PARCS equipment is

assumed to have a useful life of approximately ten years.

Expenses for the LFCPA system have historically been separated into on-street and garage

categories.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

61

Table 19: Five-Year Historical Financial Summary

Source: Lexington-Fayette Parking Authority and Walker Parking Consultants

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Monthly (On-Street) $31,606 $26,735 $35,383 $49,737 $62,099

Meter $690,450 $705,274 $769,744 $857,539 $878,752

Fines (Citations) $777,658 $703,856 $775,881 $703,875 $731,985

Monthly (Garages) $850,021 $805,074

Transient $451,048 $726,454

Event $202,975 $186,386

Jurors $8,027 $13,834

Validations $31,889 $56,494

Refunds -$1,014 $7,706

Retail rental $63,098 $81,269

Rebate $7,714

Interest $3,879 $1,443 $1,697

Misc $550 $7,676 $5,017 $2,070 $4,587

Total Revenues $1,504,143 $1,444,985 $1,587,722 $3,219,265 $3,562,354

Salary & Benefits $157,972 $153,812 $173,823 $225,251 $243,665

Prof & Contract Svcs $629,106 $712,746 $936,992 $868,680 $908,945

General Operating $25,651 $23,892 $28,122 $44,199 $47,233

On-Street Operating $54,629 $25,727 $16,023 $11,007 $15,953

Garage Operating $947,355 $972,654

Depreciation $194,379 $514,120

On-Street Total $1,138,130 $1,199,843

Garage Total $947,355 $972,654

Total Operating Expenses $867,358 $916,177 $1,154,960 $2,290,871 $2,702,570

NOI $636,785 $528,808 $432,762 $928,394 $859,784

Capital Expenditures

Office Equipment $0

Other Equipment (meters) $0 $43,132 $65,154

Loss on Asset disposal $9,383 -$43,489 -$65,154

Depreciation $74,257 $77,936 $88,138

On-street $114,267 $103,452

Capital - Victorian Square $2,412,670 $185,490

Capital - Transit Center $9,703,342 $917,369

Capital - Courthouse $232,268 $122,178

Capital - Annex $4,791,271 $856,945

Asset expense eliminated -$17,236,165 -$2,080,371

Total $83,640 $77,579 $88,138 $17,653 $105,063

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

62

ASSUMPTIONS

Two scenarios were created for this financial analysis, Case 1 is a base case and a Case 2

represents system optimization. Case 2 includes an analysis on the impact of a new parking

garage. There are two garage types modeled based on existing garages and location

options.

Case 1 is a base case with relatively small, straightforward changes to the parking system. The

purpose of this scenario is to represent a system with no significant changes (increased hours

of operations, new parking garage construction, or significant rate changes) and conservative

volume, rate, and expense increases. This scenario was created with the following

assumptions:

CASE 1: GARAGE ASSUMPTIONS

Monthly Contract Volume Growth – 1% increase in 2015 to 2019 for additional monthly

contract parkers from the identified new development; 0.5% per year for the rest of the

term

Transient Volume Growth – 1% growth in 2015 to 2019; 0.5% per year for the rest of the

term

Monthly Contract Rate Growth – Rates remain constant through 2016; bi-annual

increases of 1.5% from 2017 to 2034

Transient Rate Growth – Rates remain constant through 2016; bi-annual increases of

1.5% from 2017 to 2034

Garage Operating Expenses – 2.5% increase per year for entire term

$6,000,000 loan payments continue through completion in 2028. No new financing

during the full 20 year term.

CAPEX continues annually as identified by in the Desman facility condition reports

PARCS equipment is replaced every 10 years (2023, and 2033) at a similar replacement

cost to the current equipment.

The annual debt service will remain $448,519 annually through May 2018. From June

2018 through May 2028, annual debt service assumes a 10 year remaining payback at

a 4% annual interest rate, or $527,684 annually.

CASE 1: ON-STREET ASSUMPTIONS

Utilization Growth – .5% growth per year for entire term

Rate Growth – Rates remain constant through 2016; bi-annual increases of 1.5% from

2017 to 2034

Price Elasticity – (0.05) per year for entire term

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

63

Enforcement Citation Growth – 0% growth per year for entire term

On-street Operating Expenses – 2.5% increase per year for entire term

No increase to on-street operating and enforcement hours, remaining at 9 hours per

day

CAPEX assumes $50,000.00 in annual meter replacement costs with a 2.5% annual

increase for the rest of the term

Total number of On-street parking spaces remain constant

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

64

Table 20: Case 1 – 20-Year Financial Summary (No new facility)


Total Parking System 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Rev-Transient 647,960$ 654,439$ 670,899$ 677,583$ 694,623$ 698,241$ 712,258$ 715,794$ 730,162$ 733,786$

Rev-Lease 856,346$ 862,678$ 884,375$ 892,622$ 915,071$ 923,604$ 942,146$ 946,221$ 965,216$ 969,391$

Rev-Event 186,386 186,386 188,250 190,132 192,034 192,994 193,959 194,929 195,903 196,883

Rev-Jurors 13,972 14,112 14,253 14,396 14,540 14,612 14,685 14,759 14,833 14,907

Rev-Validations 57,059 57,630 58,206 58,788 59,376 59,673 59,971 60,271 60,572 60,875

Rev-Refunds/Over/Short 7,783 7,861 7,939 8,019 8,099 8,140 8,180 8,221 8,262 8,304

Rev-Rent 82,082 82,903 83,732 84,569 85,415 85,842 86,271 86,702 87,136 87,571

Rev-Misc 11,690 11,807 11,925 12,044 12,164 12,225 12,286 12,348 12,410 12,472

Rev-On Street Parking 1,695,794 1,699,728 1,923,476 1,928,443 1,955,085 1,960,101 1,987,311 1,992,377 2,020,167 2,025,285

Total Gross Revenue 3,559,072 3,577,543 3,843,054 3,866,595 3,936,407 3,955,432 4,017,068 4,031,622 4,094,662 4,109,473

OPEX 2,253,661 2,311,240 2,221,893 2,273,623 2,330,502 2,383,747 2,442,047 2,497,705 2,558,822 2,617,263

NOI 1,305,410 1,266,303 1,621,161 1,592,972 1,605,905 1,571,685 1,575,021 1,533,917 1,535,840 1,492,209

CAPEX 734,538 678,500 453,250 454,531 455,845 457,191 458,570 459,985 1,541,434 462,920

Annual Debt Service 448,519 448,519 448,519 494,699 527,685 527,685 527,685 527,685 527,685 527,685


Rev-Transient 748,516$ 752,232$ 767,334$ 771,142$ 786,622$ 790,527$ 806,397$ 810,398$ 826,666$ 830,769$

Rev-Lease 988,852$ 993,129$ 1,013,066$ 1,017,448$ 1,037,874$ 1,042,363$ 1,063,289$ 1,067,888$ 1,089,326$ 1,094,038$

Rev-Event 197,867 198,857 199,851 200,850 201,854 202,864 203,878 204,897 205,922 206,951

Rev-Jurors 14,981 15,056 15,132 15,207 15,283 15,360 15,436 15,514 15,591 15,669

Rev-Validations 61,179 61,485 61,793 62,102 62,412 62,724 63,038 63,353 63,670 63,988


Rev-Rent 88,009 88,449 88,892 89,336 89,783 90,232 90,683 91,136 91,592 92,050

Rev-Misc 12,534 12,597 12,660 12,723 12,786 12,850 12,915 12,979 13,044 13,109



OPEX 2,681,336 2,742,702 2,809,877 2,874,315 2,944,746 3,012,410 3,086,257 3,157,310 3,234,742 3,309,355

NOI 1,492,617 1,446,326 1,445,106 1,396,012 1,393,043 1,340,999 1,336,159 1,281,005 1,274,160 1,215,734

CAPEX 464,443 466,004 467,604 469,244 470,926 472,649 474,415 476,225 1,558,081 479,983

Annual Debt Service 527,685 527,685 527,685 219,869 0 0 0 0 0 0

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

65

Case 2 is an optimization case. The purpose of this scenario is to represent a system with

recommended improvements in pricing, hours of operation, and less conservative rate growth

factors. This scenario was created with the following assumptions:

CASE 2: GARAGE ASSUMPTIONS

Monthly Contract Volume Growth – 1.5% annual for the entire term

Transient Volume Growth – 1% growth in 2015 to 2019; 0.5% per year for the rest of the

term

Monthly Contract Rate Growth – Rates remain constant through 2015, with the

exception of Victorian Square which assumes a $10 increase for both non-reserved &

reserved rates in 2015. In 2016 rates increase 10%; and starting in 2017 all rates begin a

bi-annual increase of 8%.

Transient Rate Growth – Weighted average rate of $2.66 for 2015; in 2016 rates increase

10%; starting in 2017 all rates begin a bi-annual increase of 8%.

$6,000,000 loan payments continue through completion in 2028.

CAPEX continues annually as identified by in the Desman facility condition reports

PARCS equipment is replaced every 10 years (2023, and 2033) at a similar replacement

cost to the current equipment.



a 4% annual interest rate, or $527,684 annually.

CASE 2: ON-STREET ASSUMPTIONS

Utilization Growth – 1.5% per year for entire term

Rate Growth – 25% for years 1 & 2; 10% for years 3 & 4; 2.5% per year for balance of term

Price Elasticity – (0.05) per year for entire term

Enforcement Citation Growth – 33% increase in year 1 for additional 3 hours per

weekday of enforcement time; 0% per year thereafter

On-street Operating Expenses – 18% On-Street OPEX increase (33% increase in payroll)

to account for additional 3 hours of daily enforcement; 2.5% annual adjustment

(inflation) thereafter

Garage Operating Expenses – 2.5% increase per year for entire term

Increase in on-street operating and enforcement hours to 12 hours per day

CAPEX assumes $50,000.00 in annual meter replacement costs with a 2.5% annual

increase for the rest of the term

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

66

Table 21: 1-20 Year Financial Summary (No new facility)



Rev-Transient 664,482$ 697,707$ 769,221$ 778,296$ 825,381$ 833,533$ 883,963$ 892,694$ 946,701$ 956,052$

Rev-Lease 856,346$ 862,678$ 919,399$ 926,521$ 982,576$ 990,188$ 1,050,094$ 1,058,230$ 1,122,252$ 1,130,947$

Rev-Event 186,386 186,386 195,705 197,662 199,639 201,635 203,652 205,688 207,745 209,823

Rev-Jurors 14,526 15,252 16,015 16,175 16,336 16,500 16,665 16,831 17,000 17,170

Rev-Validations 59,319 62,285 65,399 66,053 66,713 67,381 68,054 68,735 69,422 70,116


Rev-Rent 85,332 89,599 94,079 95,020 95,970 96,930 97,899 98,878 99,867 100,865

Rev-Misc 12,153 12,760 13,398 13,532 13,668 13,804 13,942 14,082 14,223 14,365



OPEX 2,381,089 2,441,854 2,381,912 2,437,165 2,508,069 2,566,172 2,641,006 2,702,108 2,781,095 2,845,352

NOI 1,675,147 1,944,791 2,211,895 2,198,795 2,297,858 2,273,109 2,371,131 2,344,839 2,731,029 2,705,948

CAPEX 734,538 678,500 453,250 454,531 455,845 457,191 458,570 459,985 1,541,434 462,920

Annual Debt Service 448,519 448,519 448,519 494,699 527,685 527,685 527,685 527,685 527,685 527,685


Rev-Transient 1,013,894$ 1,023,907$ 1,085,852$ 1,096,576$ 1,162,918$ 1,174,404$ 1,245,457$ 1,257,757$ 1,333,850$ 1,347,024$

Rev-Lease 1,199,370$ 1,208,662$ 1,281,786$ 1,291,718$ 1,369,867$ 1,380,482$ 1,464,001$ 1,475,346$ 1,564,605$ 1,576,730$

Rev-Event 211,921 214,040 216,180 218,342 220,526 222,731 224,958 227,208 229,480 231,775

Rev-Jurors 17,341 17,515 17,690 17,867 18,046 18,226 18,408 18,592 18,778 18,966

Rev-Validations 70,818 71,526 72,241 72,963 73,693 74,430 75,174 75,926 76,685 77,452


Rev-Rent 101,874 102,893 103,922 104,961 106,011 107,071 108,141 109,223 110,315 111,418

Rev-Misc 14,508 14,654 14,800 14,948 15,098 15,249 15,401 15,555 15,711 15,868



OPEX 2,928,727 2,996,304 3,084,318 3,155,385 3,248,302 3,323,043 3,421,143 3,499,748 3,603,327 3,685,998

NOI 2,818,436 2,791,720 2,910,660 2,882,236 3,008,062 2,977,851 3,111,026 3,078,947 3,219,962 3,185,930

CAPEX 464,443 466,004 467,604 469,244 470,926 472,649 474,415 476,225 1,558,081 479,983

Annual Debt Service 527,685 527,685 527,685 219,869 0 0 0 0 0 0

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

67

NEW GARAGE OPTION A

OPERATING REVENUES:

A new garage with 600 spaces. This option would operate at the high-end utilization, as

historically experienced at the Victorian Square and Helix locations.

Ramp-up factors of 75% and 95% are used for Years 1 and 2 to reflect a reasonable

time for the parking facility to achieve stabilized occupancy. Year 1 occupancy is

projected for July 1, 2017, with full utilization estimated at 2019.

At full utilization, the project estimates 600 monthly patrons starting at an average of

$86.00 per month. Monthly rates are increased 8% bi-annually. Sites 1 and 5 from the

analysis above would bring in the highest monthly rates based existing market.

Transient revenue, at full utilization, is estimated at approximately 123,000 transactions

(206 per space) annually. This equates to $735 per space annual transient revenue,

which is the high-end utilization and revenue per space across the existing LFCPA

Garages. This project also assumes the same average ticket price of $3.57 (in 2019)

which increases at the assumed rates outlined above.

Event parking for Rupp arena is projected at $250 per space annually.

A vacancy/collection loss factor equal to 5.00% of the ‘Lease’ revenues is deducted to

derive Net Revenue.

Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar.



a 4% annual interest rate, or $527,684 annually. Estimated garage construction costs

assume a 20 year payback at a 4% interest rate.

EXPENSES:

Operating Expenses are calculated at $475 per space annually. This is the current

average per space operating expenditures for the combined LFCPA garages.

Analysis assumes automated pay stations are used to collect transient revenues. The

parking facility is assumed to add PARCS equipment in year 1 (2017). A CAPEX cost of

approximately $500 per space was calculated, totaling $300,000. PARCS equipment is

estimated to be replaced after 10 years in 2027.

Additional CAPEX of $75 per space annually is included for the term.

Construction costs at $14,500 per space, plus 15% for consulting, design, and other fees.

Total construction costs come to $16,675 per space. This cost does not include land

acquisition.

Property taxes are excluded.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

68

Expenses have been inflated by 2.5% percent annually.

Debt service on the new facility assumes the following: 20 year term; 4% financing; $0

upfront capital

Figures have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

69

Table 22: Garage Option A


New Parking Facility 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Rev-Transient 306,255 387,923 441,007 441,007 476,288 476,288 514,391 514,391 555,542

Rev-Lease 441,602 559,363 635,908 635,908 686,780 686,780 741,723 741,723 801,060

Rev-Event 112,500 106,875 115,425 115,425 124,659 124,659 134,632 134,632 145,402

Rev-Validations 31,500 29,925 32,319 32,319 34,905 34,905 37,697 37,697 40,713

Total Gross Revenue 891,857 1,084,086 1,224,659 1,224,659 1,322,631 1,322,631 1,428,442 1,428,442 1,542,717

OPEX 285,000 292,125 299,428 306,914 314,587 322,451 330,513 338,775 347,245

NOI 606,857 791,961 925,230 917,745 1,008,045 1,000,180 1,097,929 1,089,666 1,195,472

% Margin 68% 73% 76% 75% 76% 76% 77% 76% 77%

CAPEX 345,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000

Debt Serv ice $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185


Rev-Lease 801,060 865,145 865,145 934,357 934,357 1,009,105 1,009,105 1,089,834 1,089,834

Rev-Event 145,402 157,034 157,034 169,597 169,597 183,165 183,165 197,818 197,818

Rev-Validations 40,713 43,970 43,970 47,487 47,487 51,286 51,286 42,000 42,000

Total Gross Revenue 1,542,717 1,666,134 1,666,134 1,799,425 1,799,425 1,943,379 1,943,379 2,085,460 2,085,460

OPEX 355,926 364,824 373,945 383,293 392,876 402,698 412,765 423,084 433,661

NOI 1,186,791 1,301,310 1,292,190 1,416,132 1,406,550 1,540,682 1,530,614 1,662,376 1,651,799

% Margin 77% 78% 78% 79% 78% 79% 79% 80% 79%

CAPEX 45,000 345,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000

Debt Serv ice $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

70

Table 23: Garage Option A System Financial Impact



Rev-Transient 664,482$ 697,707$ 1,028,132$ 1,106,250$ 1,187,857$ 1,196,009$ 1,264,562$ 1,273,293$ 1,346,330$ 1,355,682$

Rev-Lease 856,346$ 862,678$ 1,348,735$ 1,470,347$ 1,583,646$ 1,591,258$ 1,681,218$ 1,689,353$ 1,784,932$ 1,793,627$

Rev-Event 186,386 186,386 308,205 304,537 311,858 313,854 321,481 323,518 331,466 333,544

Rev-Jurors 14,526 15,252 16,015 16,175 16,336 16,500 16,665 16,831 17,000 17,170

Rev-Validations 59,319 62,285 65,399 66,053 66,713 67,381 68,054 68,735 69,422 70,116


Rev-Rent 85,332 89,599 94,079 95,020 95,970 96,930 97,899 98,878 99,867 100,865

Rev-Misc 12,153 12,760 13,398 13,532 13,668 13,804 13,942 14,082 14,223 14,365



OPEX 2,381,089 2,441,854 2,666,912 2,437,165 2,508,069 2,566,172 2,641,006 2,702,108 2,781,095 2,845,352

NOI 1,675,147 1,944,791 2,727,642 3,177,450 3,373,623 3,348,873 3,500,684 3,474,392 3,917,059 3,891,979

CAPEX 734,538 678,500 798,250 499,531 500,845 502,191 503,570 504,985 1,586,434 507,920

Annual Debt Service 448,519 448,519 1,184,704 1,230,884 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870


Rev-Transient 1,433,505$ 1,443,518$ 1,526,443$ 1,537,167$ 1,625,539$ 1,637,025$ 1,731,209$ 1,743,509$ 1,843,890$ 1,857,064$

Rev-Lease 1,895,183$ 1,904,476$ 2,012,391$ 2,022,323$ 2,137,002$ 2,147,617$ 2,269,493$ 2,280,837$ 2,410,370$ 2,422,496$

Rev-Event 341,828 343,947 352,583 354,745 363,748 365,954 375,342 377,592 387,383 389,678

Rev-Jurors 17,341 17,515 17,690 17,867 18,046 18,226 18,408 18,592 18,778 18,966

Rev-Validations 70,818 71,526 72,241 72,963 73,693 74,430 75,174 75,926 76,685 77,452


Rev-Rent 101,874 102,893 103,922 104,961 106,011 107,071 108,141 109,223 110,315 111,418

Rev-Misc 14,508 14,654 14,800 14,948 15,098 15,249 15,401 15,555 15,711 15,868



OPEX 2,928,727 2,996,304 3,084,318 3,155,385 3,248,302 3,323,043 3,421,143 3,499,748 3,603,327 3,685,998

NOI 4,063,768 4,037,052 4,218,258 4,189,834 4,381,040 4,350,829 4,552,653 4,520,574 4,733,670 4,699,639

CAPEX 509,443 511,004 812,604 514,244 515,926 517,649 519,415 521,225 1,603,081 524,983

Annual Debt Service 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870 956,054 736,185 736,185 736,185 736,185 736,185 736,185

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

71

NEW GARAGE OPTION B

OPERATING REVENUES:

A new garage with 600 spaces. This option would operate at the low-end utilization, as

historically experienced at the Transit Center and Courthouse Garages.

Ramp-up factors of 75% and 95% are used for Years 1 and 2 to reflect a reasonable

time for the parking facility to achieve stabilized occupancy. Year 1 occupancy is

projected for July 1, 2017, with full utilization estimated at 2019.

At full utilization, the project estimates 600 monthly patrons starting at $31.00 per month.

Monthly rates are increased 8% bi-annually. Sites 2, 3, and 4 from the analysis above

would bring in the lower-end monthly rates based on that areas existing market.

Transient revenue, at full utilization, is estimated at approximately 54,000 transactions (90

per space) annually. This equates to $321 per space annual transient revenue, which is

the low-end utilization and revenue per space across the existing LFCPA Garages. This

project also assumes the same average ticket price of $3.57 (in 2019) which increases

at the assumed rates outlined above.

No Event parking revenue is estimated for this option.

A vacancy/collection loss factor, to account for uncollectable, outstanding, or

shrinkage, equal to 5.00% of the ‘Lease’ revenues is deducted to derive Net Revenue.

Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar.



a 4% annual interest rate, or $527,684 annually. Estimated garage construction costs

assume a 20 year payback at a 4% interest rate.

EXPENSES:

Operating Expenses are calculated at $475 per space annually. This is the current

average per space operating expenditures for the combined LFCPA garages.

Analysis assumes automated pay stations are used to collect transient revenues. The

parking facility is assumed to add PARCS equipment in year 1 (2017). A CAPEX cost of

approximately $500 per space was calculated, totaling $300,000. PARCS equipment is

estimated to be replaced after 10 years in 2027.

Additional CAPEX of $75 per space annually is included for the term.

Construction costs at $14,500 per space, plus 15% for consulting, design, and other fees.

Total construction costs come to $16,675 per space. This cost does not include land

acquisition.

Property taxes are excluded.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

72

Expenses have been inflated by 2.5% percent annually.

Debt service on the new facility assumes the following: 20 year term; 4% financing; $0

upfront capital

Figures have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

73

Table 24: Garage Option B



Rev-Lease 146,287 185,297 210,654 210,654 227,506 227,506 245,707 245,707 265,363

Rev-Event 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rev-Validations 495 470 508 508 548 548 592 592 640

Total Gross Revenue 280,583 355,248 403,835 403,835 436,141 436,141 471,033 471,033 508,715

OPEX 285,000 292,125 299,428 306,914 314,587 322,451 330,513 338,775 347,245

NOI (4,417) 63,123 104,407 96,921 121,555 113,690 140,520 132,257 161,471

% Margin -2% 18% 26% 24% 28% 26% 30% 28% 32%

CAPEX 345,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000

Debt Serv ice $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185


Rev-Lease 265,363 286,592 286,592 309,520 309,520 334,281 334,281 361,024 361,024

Rev-Event 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rev-Validations 640 691 691 746 746 806 806 660 660

Total Gross Revenue 508,715 549,413 549,413 593,366 593,366 640,835 640,835 691,891 691,891

OPEX 355,926 364,824 373,945 383,293 392,876 402,698 412,765 423,084 433,661

NOI 152,789 184,588 175,468 210,072 200,490 238,137 228,070 268,807 258,230

% Margin 30% 34% 32% 35% 34% 37% 36% 39% 37%

CAPEX 45,000 345,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000

Debt Serv ice $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185 $736,185

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

74

Table 25: Garage Option B System Financial Impact



Rev-Transient 664,482$ 697,707$ 882,338$ 921,576$ 983,744$ 991,896$ 1,050,244$ 1,058,975$ 1,121,296$ 1,130,648$

Rev-Lease 856,346$ 862,678$ 1,061,623$ 1,106,672$ 1,181,689$ 1,189,301$ 1,259,163$ 1,267,299$ 1,341,775$ 1,350,470$

Rev-Event 186,386 186,386 195,705 197,662 199,639 201,635 203,652 205,688 207,745 209,823

Rev-Jurors 14,526 15,252 16,015 16,175 16,336 16,500 16,665 16,831 17,000 17,170

Rev-Validations 59,319 62,285 65,399 66,053 66,713 67,381 68,054 68,735 69,422 70,116


Rev-Rent 85,332 89,599 94,079 95,020 95,970 96,930 97,899 98,878 99,867 100,865

Rev-Misc 12,153 12,760 13,398 13,532 13,668 13,804 13,942 14,082 14,223 14,365



OPEX 2,381,089 2,441,854 2,666,912 2,437,165 2,508,069 2,566,172 2,641,006 2,702,108 2,781,095 2,845,352

NOI 1,675,147 1,944,791 2,182,235 2,522,226 2,655,335 2,630,585 2,746,481 2,720,189 3,125,147 3,100,066

CAPEX 734,538 678,500 798,250 499,531 500,845 502,191 503,570 504,985 1,586,434 507,920

Annual Debt Service 448,519 448,519 1,184,704 1,230,884 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870


Rev-Transient 1,197,219$ 1,207,232$ 1,278,343$ 1,289,067$ 1,365,034$ 1,376,520$ 1,457,678$ 1,469,979$ 1,556,683$ 1,569,857$

Rev-Lease 1,429,868$ 1,439,161$ 1,523,810$ 1,533,742$ 1,623,992$ 1,634,607$ 1,730,832$ 1,742,177$ 1,844,777$ 1,856,902$

Rev-Event 211,921 214,040 216,180 218,342 220,526 222,731 224,958 227,208 229,480 231,775

Rev-Jurors 17,341 17,515 17,690 17,867 18,046 18,226 18,408 18,592 18,778 18,966

Rev-Validations 70,818 71,526 72,241 72,963 73,693 74,430 75,174 75,926 76,685 77,452


Rev-Rent 101,874 102,893 103,922 104,961 106,011 107,071 108,141 109,223 110,315 111,418

Rev-Misc 14,508 14,654 14,800 14,948 15,098 15,249 15,401 15,555 15,711 15,868



OPEX 2,928,727 2,996,304 3,084,318 3,155,385 3,248,302 3,323,043 3,421,143 3,499,748 3,603,327 3,685,998

NOI 3,232,260 3,205,544 3,345,175 3,316,751 3,464,302 3,434,092 3,590,078 3,558,000 3,722,967 3,688,936

CAPEX 509,443 511,004 812,604 514,244 515,926 517,649 519,415 521,225 1,603,081 524,983

Annual Debt Service 1,263,870 1,263,870 1,263,870 956,054 736,185 736,185 736,185 736,185 736,185 736,185

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

75

PROPOSED TEN-YEAR PLAN

The recommendations included in this report are generally organized into six (6) phases. Each

phase improves elements of the parking system that work towards improving the public

parking system in downtown Lexington.

PHASE 1 – 2015 & 2016

Task 1: INCREASE BICYCLE RACK PARKING, MAKING IT EASIER FOR LOCALS TO ENJOY

DOWNTOWN WITHOUT PARKING A CAR

Purpose:

Encourage active lifestyles and provide alternative transportation options for those that

visit, live, or work in downtown Lexington

Reduce the dependence on and overbuilding of expensive parking supply

Action Items:

Lighting, security, bike paths, and signage all need to be considered

Determine the best locations for new bicycle racks, secure storage, and parklets

Work with the downtown business and residential community to help promote bicycle

usage

Benefits:

Reduced long-term investment in costly new parking supply

Improved access to on-street supply for the intended users

Task 2: INCREASE ON-STREET AND OFF-STREET RATES

Sub-tasks:

Increase on-street hourly rates by $.50 per hour

Increase off-street (garage) maximum daily rates by $1.00

Determine the average duration of stay at each facility and consider small increases to

the corresponding facility rate band

Increase Victorian Square permit pricing by $10.00 for each permit type

Purpose:

Provide downtown visitors with more short-term parking options by moving long-term

parkers out of prime short-term spaces

Bring the LFCPA managed parking garages closer to local, regional, and national

average off-street rates

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

76

Generate additional revenue that can be reinvested into the downtown parking system

Action Items:

Communicate pricing changes to the local businesses and stakeholders initially,

promoting the price changes

Provide the larger Lexington community with advanced notice of any rate changes

through the lexpark.org website, social media, and applicable media outlets

Configure applicable hardware and software parking systems with the new rates and

effective dates

Benefits:

Improved access to short-term parking supply through better distribution of short-term

and long-term parking demand

Increased revenues generated from existing parking assets to fund additional, new

parking assets

Task 3: INTRODUCE NEW GARAGE PERMIT TYPES

Purpose:

Offer additional permit options for different potential user types

Increase off-street garage utilization, both during peak and off-peak times


Action Items:

Implement and market the following permit types:

o Evening Only Permits

o Parking Debit Cards (either use- or dollar-base decrementing permits)

o Day Permits (not 24/7; business hours only)

o Frequent Parker Program

o Free / Reduced parking for ride-sharing vehicles

Configure applicable hardware and software parking systems with the new permit

types, rates, and effective times and dates

Benefits:

Improved off-street garage utilization

Provide long-term, generally employee, parkers with off-street parking options that are

inexpensive and reward them for not parking on-street


parking assets

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

77

Task 4: MIGRATION OF ALL CREDIT CARD ACCEPTING HARDWARE TO EMV COMPLIANT

READERS

Purpose:

Make sure the LFCPA parking system / hardware is compliant with upcoming (10/2015)

EMV guidelines

Reduce the cost and risk to LFCPA for processing credit cards

Insure that LFCPA and its vendors implement a roadmap, timeline, and transition plan

for EMV compliance

Action Items:

Contact each hardware vendor that provides LFCPA parking equipment that

processes credit cards to discuss the vendor’s current options for bringing current

customer’s to EMV compliance

Determine the budget impact for each vendor’s solution

Coordinate a plan with the vendor and in accordance with LFCPA’s financial resources

and obligations to develop an EMV migration plan and timeline

Benefits:

Reduce the cost and risk to LFCPA for processing credit cards

Prepare the parking system for accepting chip-based credit cards

Task 4: IMPROVE WAYFINDING, EXPAND THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM, AND

CONSIDER A PILOT PROGRAM FOR SHARED PARKING IN THE CHEVY CHASE NEIGHBORHOOD

Purpose:

Provide area visitors with more short-term parking options by increasing available public

supply through partnerships with private owners

Protect the on-street spaces in neighborhoods for residential use, where appropriate

Action Items:

Evaluate the availability of Chevy Chase residential neighborhood on-street spaces

and the impact of new developments

Work with the private supply owners to create a database of private parking space

inventory that is available for public consumption

Benefits:

Prepare the area for increased development growth and the resulting parking demand

Increase the efficiency and utilization of existing public and private parking supply

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

78

PHASE 2 – 2017 TO 2020

Task 1: INCREASE ON-STREET OPERATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT HOURS UNTIL 8:00 PM MONDAY

– FRIDAY. CONSIDER SATURDAY OPERATIONS AS WELL.

Purpose:

Provide downtown evening visitors with more short-term parking options by moving

long-term parkers out of prime short-term on-street spaces


Reduce the dependence on and overbuilding of expensive parking supply by better

utilizing, available evening parking supply

Action Items:

Communicate operational and enforcement hour changes to the local businesses and

stakeholders initially, promoting the benefits of increased on-street turnover and

availability

Provide the larger Lexington community with advanced notice of any time changes

through the lexpark.org website, social media, and applicable media outlets

Replace the free on-street parking option with free or reduced parking fees for off-

street (garage) parking spaces

o Consider a 2 hour free after 6:00 PM rate schedule for LFCPA managed parking

garages

Benefits:


Improved access to short-term on-street parking supply through better distribution of

short-term and long-term parking demand


parking assets

Task 2: WORK WITH THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE

APPROPRIATE METRICS FOR EVALUATING AND GRADING POTENTIAL PARKING SUPPLY

ADDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Purpose:

Allow LFPCA and the parking system to be a catalyst for economic growth in Lexington,

KY

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

79

Provide flexibility to both LFCPA, the Downtown Development Authority, and potential

developers / investors when evaluating the parking needs and requirements for

upcoming economic development opportunities

Reduce the dependence on and overbuilding of expensive parking supply

Action Items:

Develop evaluation criteria that includes, but not limited to the following:

o Walking Distance – Level of Service by patron type

o Operating and Capital Costs

o Structural Repair Budget Assumptions

o Minimum Parking Structure Dimensions

o Fee-In-Lieu (Payment In Lieu of Parking) options

o Shared Parking opportunities:

Walker recommends the adoption of the base parking ratios developed

by the Urban Land Institute, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), or the Parking Consultants Council of the National Parking Association

Benefits:


Remove parking supply as an impediment to economic development

Improve the efficiency of the entire LFCPA parking system

Task 3: RE-ASSESS OVERALL DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Purpose:

Evaluate the construction of a new structured parking facility in Zones 1 or 2

Increase public parking supply, as needed, based on changes demand characteristics

Action Items:

Analyze the current parking system occupancy and utilization to determine timeline,

space requirements, and location for a new parking garage

Calculate the acquisition and construction costs for building additional supply

Determine funding sources

Benefits:

Increased parking supply for both current and future parking demand

Remove parking supply as an impediment to economic development

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

80

Task 4: RE-EVALUATE ON-STREET AND OFF-STREET RATES FOR CONTINUOUS MODEST INCREASES

TO ADJUST FOR INFLATION AND ANY OTHER VARIABLES AFFECTING MARKET PRICING

Sub-tasks:

Increase citation rates by $10.00

Consider a graduated or incentive based fine schedule for repeat offenders

Purpose:

Provide downtown visitors with more short-term parking options by moving long-term

parkers out of prime short-term spaces




Action Items:

Review local market, comparative regional, and national average price points

Determine the impact of a rate change to the local community and stakeholders

Evaluate current parking system occupancy and utilization in order to implement rate

changes that promote improved system efficiency

Benefits:




parking assets

Task 5: OUTLINE AND IMPLEMENT AN ‘LFCPA DOWNTOWN SHARED PARKING PROGRAM’

Purpose:

Improve the overall parking experience for all downtown Lexington visitors, residents,

and employees

Make all parking assets, public and private, more efficient through increased utilization

Provide a monthly financial return to private parking supply owners

Assist private parking supply owners market and sell unused spaces

Action Items:

Discuss the possible revenues and benefits to local private parking supply owners, and

create a database of private parking space inventory that is available for public

consumption

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

81

Create a map of location rates by area or zone that would provide the private supply

owners a guideline for potential monthly rates


marketing pamphlets, email campaigns, and opening the inventory database up to

the lexpark.org website for potential patrons to search, find, and connect to available

spaces

Determine what services LFCPA is willing to provide in order to increase private supply

owner participation

Benefits:



Revenue opportunities for private parking supply owners that have under-utilized

spaces


LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

82

PHASE 3 – 2021 TO 2025

Task 1: AS ON-STREET HARDWARE IS REPLACED, CONSIDER HOW DEMAND BASED PRICING

MECHANISMS WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY CAN HELP MANAGE AND DISTRIBUTE DEMAND

Purpose:

Improve the overall parking experience for all downtown Lexington visitors, residents,

and employees

Make all parking assets, public and private, more efficient through increased utilization




Task 2: RE-ASSESS OVERALL DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ALONG WITH UNIQUE

CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIFIC DOWNTOWN AREAS TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL NEEDS AND

LOCATIONS FOR NEW PARKING STRUCTURES

Purpose:

Evaluate the construction of a new structured parking facility based on new or

projected demand increases

Increase public parking supply, as needed, based on changes demand characteristics

Task 3: CONTINUE TO EVALUATE LOCAL AND NATIONAL TRENDS RELATED TO SINGLE-

OCCUPANCY VEHICLE USAGE AND CHANGES MODAL TRENDS, WHICH CAN IMPACT CURRENT

AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS

Purpose:


Understand and react to changes in demand drivers that affect utilization and

investment into current and future parking assets

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

83

APPENDIX

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The objective of the LFCPA’s parking plan includes sorting through the need for a

parking structure and other issues relating to parking policies and practices, including

the following:

Elicit input from area stakeholders and their support for a parking plan;

Provide an analysis and recommendations regarding parking regulations;

Prevent parking issues from developing without overbuilding the parking supply;

Evaluate existing and future parking supply/demand conditions and project future

parking needs;

Study and evaluate meters, parking citations rates, pay-by-rate analysis, signage, and

recommend up-to-date technologies which will improve the parking experience;

Provide guidance to the LFCPA in the formulation of policies to address the ongoing

development of downtown while preventing parking issues from developing and help

to ensure that existing off- and on-street parking supply is being efficiently and

effectively utilized;

Make targeted and specific recommendations regarding the adequacy of parking,

transportation demand management measures, parking management, pricing, and

financing of new parking facilities; and

Develop a parking plan that supports economic development within the CBD.

TASK I – PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY

OBJECTIVE: Before an effective parking plan can be formulated, a clear understanding of

current and future parking conditions in the LFCPA study area is required. The Supply/Demand

Analysis constitutes a needs assessment of current and anticipated parking conditions.

The parking information that will be independently documented, analyzed and presented by

Walker in this analysis provides a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the parking

characteristics within the defined study area. The foundation of a parking supply and

demand analysis is an inventory of the parking supply creating a “snapshot” of current parking

conditions. Walker staff will conduct field research to ensure accuracy of the existing parking

supply and categorize the supply by type (on-street, off-street, structured, surface lot) and by

ownership (private or public). Occupancy counts will be conducted over a period of time to

capture user trends and enable Walker to clearly convey the trends of vehicle presence in the

study area. The occupancy counts will then be compared to the effective parking supply

(actual supply less 10% to 15%) to determine the estimated parking adequacy on a block-by-

block basis. Some of the questions that need to be resolved include:

What is the parking supply?

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

84

What is the parking demand?

Is there a surplus or deficit?

What will parking conditions be like in the future?

Is additional parking required? If so, how much?

Who needs additional parking?

Community input is typically sought during the Supply/Demand Analysis. Walker’s calculation

of future parking demand is based on a thorough understanding of existing land uses, as well

as the future land uses that may enter or leave the defined study area.

Parking is not an end in and of itself; rather it is a derivative of the demand for other activities

and the travel characteristics of the market area. The quantity and type of activities within a

market area most often determines the overall need for parking, as well as unique demand

characteristics that relate to time-of-day, day-of-week and time-of-year variations. Therefore,

Walker’s approach to projecting future parking demand will apply the knowledge we will

have gained from the supply analysis and will require input from stakeholders and city planners

in order to fully understand future changes in the study area. Once the calculation of future

parking demand is complete, it will be compared to the existing parking supply to determine

the future parking adequacy. The parking adequacy in the study area is communicated in

tabular and graphic form and identifies the parking conditions on a block-by-block basis. In

addition to our own collections, Walker will utilize any relevant information provided by the

LFCPA.

The benefit of this approach is a parking plan based on your community values and pro-

actively designed to meet your future needs before they become issues. Our

recommendations are tailored to match your constituency’s wants, needs and desires for the

parking system and the economic realities specific to the LFCPA.

TASK I – SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. Meet with LFCPA representatives to finalize project parameters, review project

background and obtain previous reports, area maps, and other background

information.

2. Obtain and review land use data within the study area, provided in terms of square

footage by land-use type (i.e. retail, restaurant, hotel, office, etc.)

3. Conduct parking inventories of all on- and off-street parking within the study area.

Inventories will include space counts, rates, and restrictions.

4. Conduct parking occupancy counts of all parking in the study area on a weekday.

5. Create a parking demand model using Walker Parking Consultant’s shared parking

model to project typical parking demand throughout a weekday.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

85

6. Calibrate the demand model to reflect observed conditions, thus calculating parking

demand ratios for the land uses present.

7. Determine the surplus or shortfall within the area under current conditions, and create

tabular and graphic illustrations of the parking system adequacy.

8. Obtain build-out plans from the LFCPA representatives and adjust the demand model

to show future parking demand generated by approved and/or proposed

developments in the area.

TASK II: PARKING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVE: With the understanding gained from the completion of Task I above, Walker will

develop solid, achievable recommendations for improving the current parking conditions and

meeting future parking demand efficiently and cost-effectively. Some of the questions that

will need to be resolved include:

Can the parking system be made to function more efficiently, such that more cars can

be accommodated without building additional parking?

If necessary, how can the parking capacity be increased?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives for increasing parking

capacity and how do they compare with each other?

How much does each of the alternatives cost to implement?

Where is the increased parking needed?

Can the capacity of existing parking facilities be increased? If so, how?

What phasing plan is recommended in order to provide adequate parking when it is

needed?

Can a parking structure be built on proposed sites?

The first part of the analysis will focus on management of existing resources. In addition to

evaluating opportunities for lot reconfiguration and restriping of spaces, we will analyze

location of resources, utilization imbalances (if any), time limits and/or rates, and enforcement

practices, and determine whether changes to the way the parking system is managed can

free up parking in the most congested locations.

The objective of the site planning analysis will be to determine the advantages and

disadvantages of constructing parking on various sites within the defined study area and to

recommend the most appropriate site(s). To that effect, Walker will use the results of our

supply and demand analysis to focus on localized areas with high parking demand projected

to occur.

Each site included as a possible development location will be evaluated according to how

well it ranks with site selection criteria considerations. Initially, criteria value rankings are

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

86

somewhat subjectively established by Walker. Different values are exchanged and analyzed

to establish a hierarchy that is agreed to by the LFCPA and the key stakeholders. By this

means, a consensus site recommendation can be more easily found.

Walker will work with the LFCPA representatives to identify a subjective decision matrix that is

used to measure the appropriateness of each site. The points awarded for each alternative

are determined first by assigning a score to each criterion. Some of the criteria, such as

project cost, can be scored objectively. For subjective criteria, such as land availability, a

value of 5 = excellent, down to 1 = poor, can be awarded. Next, each criterion is weighed by

assigning it points, the sum of which totals 100 points. The following are EXAMPLE criteria used

to evaluate the alternatives:

Proximity to Demand (Primary Use 7 AM to 6 PM, M-F) – The location of each potential

development site in relation to buildings that are occupied and generate demand for

parking during traditional business hours. An office building is the primary type of land

use that generates weekday demand.

Project Cost – The project cost associated with each potential development site

includes, but is not limited to property acquisition, tenant relocation, demolition, and

construction. Also, the cost per space added is considered when awarding a value to

each site. The cost per space added considers the number of existing spaces

displaced due to the construction of new parking supply.

Land Availability – The land availability associated with each potential development

site considers the existing use of the land, whether or not property acquisition is

required, the need for tenant relocation, zoning compliance, and whether or not pre-

established, redevelopment plans exist.

Revenue Potential – The potential of each site to generate operating revenue if

desired.

Proximity to Demand (Primary Use Nights & Weekends) – The location of each potential

development site in relation to commercial buildings that are occupied and generate

demand for parking during weekday evenings and weekend periods. The type of land

uses that typically generate evening and weekend demand include restaurant,

residential, retail, hotel, library, performing arts theatre, and convention center.

Traffic Impact – The traffic impact on the existing traffic patterns and what impact peak

period loading and unloading may have on the surrounding street system.

Mixed-Use Potential – The potential of each site to integrate at grade level retail,

restaurant and/or office space. Whether or not potential for a mixed-use parking

facility exists is dependent on the type of land uses that surround the site and the

existing market conditions for each type.

Future Development – The assessment of future development includes whether parking

is the best use of the land and if future development is planned on or adjacent to the

site that may benefit or hinder the parking operation.

TASK II – SCOPE OF SERVICES

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

87

1. Review inventory, utilization and turnover data collected in Task I.

2. If data suggests imbalances of usage, recommend management and policy changes

that could reduce congestion in affected areas.

3. Review existing vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation patterns for their

relationship to existing and proposed parking facilities/lots.

4. Determine whether the number of spaces could be increased through restriping and

efficiency improvements in existing facilities/lots.

5. Determine whether any existing facilities/lots can be expanded to meet area parking

needs.

6. Identify potential locations for new parking facilities (surface and/or structured).

External variables that will be considered are desirable density, phasing of construction,

and incorporation of other uses (such as retail) in any proposed facility.

7. Determine an order of magnitude project cost including estimated operational

expenses to enable a comparison of the costs of each alternative on an “apples to

apples” basis.

8. Evaluate the various alternatives on the basis of qualitative criteria to be mutually

agreed upon with the LFCPA. A weighted matrix will be used to achieve more

objectivity and to rank the alternatives.

9. Meet with the client via teleconference to discuss the conceptual designs and present

the matrix analysis to agree upon weighting and other considerations.

10. Develop a recommended plan for improvements, including phasing of components

corresponding to projected needs.

TASK III – REVIEW OF PARKING POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Objective: A review of parking policies and practices includes an objective look at the rules

that govern parking and the activities that the LFCPA employs to enforce these rules. The

overall objective of this task is to provide a professional outsider’s perspective with the aim to

help the LFCPA make its parking system the best it can be. To succeed at meeting this

objective, we consider stakeholder input, historical policies and practices, the character of

the city, and LFCPA’s organizational structure with respect to its parking operation, and then

develop a parking management plan that suggests opportunities for improvements. This task

is intended to answer a myriad of questions regarding parking policies and practices,

including the following:

Are parking rates working effectively?

What should the relationship be between on- and off-street parking rates?

Is the city’s zoning ordinance supporting economic development and protecting

property owner rights? Is it minimizing waste and promoting sustainability?

Is the LFCPA’s parking enterprise staffed appropriately?

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

88

Are parking citations rates achieving their intended purpose?

Is the LFCPA writing an appropriate number of tickets in support of its overall objectives?

Are parking enforcement days and hours supportive of the needs of the community?

Are parking spaces turning over at desirable rates?

Are there effective strategies in place to keep long-term parking patrons out of short-

term spaces?

Is technology being used effectively in support of customer service? Are there

technologies that could be cost effectively employed to provide patrons with

additional and more convenient options? If so, what are these?

How can the LFCPA’s parking operation be the best it can be?

TASK III – SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. Identify for LFCPA’s consideration, other customer-service enhancements that do not

exist in Lexington. Obtain and review city parking policies, practices, and ordinances

relating to parking.

2. Identify and gather parking policies, practices, and the parking element of zoning

ordinances of up to six other cities for purposes of benchmarking.

3. Review the LFCPA’s organizational structure and the staffing associated with its parking

assets. Recommend changes.

4. Review and comment on parking rates, time restrictions or lack thereof, and

enforcement hours.

5. Review existing parking equipment and recommend upgrades where necessary.

6. Draft a policy statement regarding the relationship between on- and off-street parking.

7. Recommend modifications to the parking element of the zoning ordinance that align

with its comprehensive plan and parking plan.

8. Review and comment on existing parking signage and identify opportunities for

improvement.

9. Identify for the LFCPA’s consideration, other customer-service enhancements that do

not exist in Lexington.

TASK IV – FINANCIAL PLAN

OBJECTIVE: A financial plan anticipates the market demand, operating revenues, operating

expenses, and debt service for the parking system. It is tailored to help guide the decisions that

must be made to promote a financially sustainable parking system.

Our Financial Analyses are characterized by having a high degree of integrity. Our goal is to

provide you with a useful tool for analyzing a project’s feasibility. We promise to be realistic

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

89

about a project’s anticipated performance, which means we may not always tell you what

you want to hear. We believe it’s better to find out now that the project is not financially viable

than to find out after the project has been developed.

TASK IV – SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. Meet with LFCPA representatives to determine study’s objectives, boundaries,

procedures and project schedule.

2. Using Walker’s database of operating expenses (collected periodically from more than

200 parking facilities), project annual operating expenses for a five-year period,

including but not limited to:

a. direct labor (cashiering, supervision, accounting, maintenance, and security)

and fringe benefits;

b. utilities;

c. supplies;

d. daily maintenance (contracts and equipment); and

e. structural maintenance (a sinking fund for periodic major expenses).

3. Using Walker’s past experience, project construction costs, contingency costs,

consulting fees and financing costs. LFCPA will be asked to assist in providing interest

rate and term of loan inputs.

4. Calculate the average annual debt service for the facility(s) and LFCPA system.

5. Research comparable market parking rates and recommend a rate structure for all

LFCPA-owned parking.

6. Based on the findings of Task I and the recommended rate structure, project the annual

net operating income of the system for a 10- and 20-year period.

REPORT PREPARATION

1. Prepare and email draft report documenting existing and future conditions, findings,

and recommendations associated with each task.

2. Prepare and email final report. Final report will address LFCPA comments pertaining to

the draft report.

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

90

Table A-1: Current Parking Supply


Block # LFCPA Garages Non-LFCPA Off-Street On-Street

1 0 41 53

2 0 26 22

3 0 190 11

4 0 182 23

5 382 0 11

6 0 479 3

7 0 327 15

8 0 0 19

9 0 0 14

10 0 0 11

11 0 600 15

12 0 307 25

13 0 0 3

14 0 0 16

15 0 92 22

16 0 0 14

17 0 0 13

18 0 184 20

19 0 0 26

20 0 83 25

21 0 0 0

22 0 67 15

23 0 0 0

24 0 0 29

25 518 84 9

26 0 0 15

27 380 423 22

28 777 0 8

29 0 103 68

30 0 49 16

31 0 72 34

32 0 412 0

33 0 0 25

34 0 0 13

35 0 0 24

36 0 0 16

37 0 0 23

38 0 0 17

39 0 255 46

40 0 0 67

41 0 2,511 0

Totals 2,057 6,487 808

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

91

Table A-2: Effective Supply


Block #

LFCPA

Garages

Effective

Supply Factor

Effective

Supply

Non-LFCPA

Off-Street

Supply

Effective

Supply Factor

Effective

Supply

On-Street

Supply

Effective

Supply Factor

Effective

Supply

Total Effective

Supply

1 0 0.90 0 41 0.95 39 53 0.85 45 84

2 0 0.90 0 26 0.95 25 22 0.85 19 43

3 0 0.90 0 190 0.95 181 11 0.85 9 190

4 0 0.90 0 182 0.95 173 23 0.85 20 192

5 382 0.90 344 0 0.95 0 11 0.85 9 353

6 0 0.90 0 479 0.95 455 3 0.85 3 458

7 0 0.90 0 327 0.95 311 15 0.85 13 323

8 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 19 0.85 16 16

9 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 14 0.85 12 12

10 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 11 0.85 9 9

11 0 0.90 0 600 0.95 570 15 0.85 13 583

12 0 0.90 0 307 0.95 292 25 0.85 21 313

13 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 3 0.85 3 3

14 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 16 0.85 14 14

15 0 0.90 0 92 0.95 87 22 0.85 19 106

16 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 14 0.85 12 12

17 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 13 0.85 11 11

18 0 0.90 0 184 0.95 175 20 0.85 17 192

19 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 26 0.85 22 22

20 0 0.90 0 83 0.95 79 25 0.85 21 100

21 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 0 0.85 0 0

22 0 0.90 0 67 0.95 64 15 0.85 13 76

23 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 0 0.85 0 0

24 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 29 0.85 25 25

25 518 0.90 466 84 0.95 80 9 0.85 8 553

26 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 15 0.85 13 13

27 380 0.90 342 423 0.95 402 22 0.85 19 763

28 777 0.90 699 0 0.95 0 8 0.85 7 706

29 0 0.90 0 103 0.95 98 68 0.85 58 156

30 0 0.90 0 49 0.95 47 16 0.85 14 60

31 0 0.90 0 72 0.95 68 34 0.85 29 97

32 0 0.90 0 412 0.95 391 0 0.85 0 391

33 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 25 0.85 21 21

34 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 13 0.85 11 11

35 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 24 0.85 20 20

36 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 16 0.85 14 14

37 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 23 0.85 20 20

38 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 17 0.85 14 14

39 0 0.90 0 255 0.95 242 46 0.85 39 281

40 0 0.90 0 0 0.95 0 67 0.85 57 57

41 0 0.90 0 2,511 0.95 2,385 0 0.85 0 2,385

Totals 2,057 0.90 1,851 6,487 0.95 6,163 808 0.85 687 8,701

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

92

Table A-3: Current Weekday Parking Occupancy (On-Street)


Block #Supply 9:00 Percentage 11:00 Percentage 14:00 Percentage 16:00 Percentage

1 53 39 74% 33 62% 31 58% 33 62%

2 22 7 32% 13 59% 19 86% 18 82%

3 11 1 9% 4 36% 1 9% 12 109%

4 23 5 22% 12 52% 14 61% 20 87%

5 11 3 27% 6 55% 13 118% 9 82%

6 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

7 15 9 60% 11 73% 5 33% 16 107%

8 19 7 37% 7 37% 13 68% 16 84%

9 14 2 14% 10 71% 10 71% 10 71%

10 11 9 82% 8 73% 7 64% 16 145%

11 15 10 67% 12 80% 2 13% 8 53%

12 25 9 36% 5 20% 8 32% 8 32%

13 3 2 67% 3 100% 3 100% 4 133%

14 16 7 44% 10 63% 7 44% 15 94%

15 22 4 18% 8 36% 3 14% 13 59%

16 14 2 14% 2 14% 1 7% 6 43%

17 13 0 0% 1 8% 4 31% 7 54%

18 20 4 20% 6 30% 8 40% 4 20%

19 26 17 65% 14 54% 18 69% 19 73%

20 25 11 44% 12 48% 14 56% 15 60%

21 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

22 15 4 27% 5 33% 4 27% 5 33%

23 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

24 29 26 90% 18 62% 27 93% 24 83%

25 9 9 100% 1 11% 7 78% 9 100%

26 15 6 40% 5 33% 5 33% 7 47%

27 22 13 59% 11 50% 13 59% 16 73%

28 8 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

29 68 16 24% 15 22% 13 19% 11 16%

30 16 2 13% 0 0% 1 6% 0 0%

31 34 12 35% 8 24% 12 35% 12 35%

32 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

33 25 5 20% 18 72% 15 60% 6 24%

34 13 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

35 24 7 29% 5 21% 6 25% 10 42%

36 16 1 6% 10 63% 10 63% 6 38%

37 23 10 43% 17 74% 9 39% 13 57%

38 17 12 71% 14 82% 16 94% 3 18%

39 46 25 54% 19 41% 21 46% 14 30%

40 67 12 18% 33 49% 14 21% 28 42%

41 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Totals 808 308 38% 356 44% 354 44% 413 51%

Weekday Average On-street Occupancy

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

93

Table A-4: Evening On-Street Parking Occupancy (10/10/2014)


Block #Supply 6:00:00 PM Percentage 8:00:00 PM Percentage 10:00:00 PM Percentage 11:59:00 PM Percentage

1 53 26 49% 28 53% 30 57% 37 70%

2 22 12 55% 14 64% 15 68% 18 82%

3 11 13 118% 13 118% 9 82% 6 55%

4 23 22 96% 23 100% 22 96% 19 83%

5 11 13 118% 8 73% 10 91% 14 127%

6 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

7 15 14 93% 14 93% 14 93% 11 73%

8 19 16 84% 20 105% 19 100% 14 74%

9 14 14 100% 15 107% 14 100% 16 114%

10 11 17 155% 12 109% 15 136% 13 118%

11 15 11 73% 13 87% 15 100% 10 67%

12 25 12 48% 13 52% 12 48% 19 76%

13 3 0 0% 2 67% 2 67% 2 67%

14 16 17 106% 18 113% 17 106% 14 88%

15 22 13 59% 15 68% 17 77% 13 59%

16 14 0 0% 3 21% 5 36% 6 43%

17 13 10 77% 9 69% 6 46% 7 54%

18 20 19 95% 19 95% 13 65% 10 50%

19 26 23 88% 22 85% 25 96% 18 69%

20 25 15 60% 18 72% 17 68% 15 60%

21 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

22 15 0 0% 6 40% 10 67% 9 60%

23 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

24 29 4 14% 9 31% 9 31% 12 41%

25 9 2 22% 2 22% 1 11% 2 22%

26 15 4 27% 9 60% 9 60% 8 53%

27 22 14 64% 19 86% 17 77% 17 77%

28 8 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

29 68 24 35% 25 37% 28 41% 30 44%

30 16 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

31 34 0 0% 23 68% 13 38% 7 21%

32 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

33 25 16 64% 17 68% 11 44% 12 48%

34 13 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

35 24 16 67% 25 104% 14 58% 12 50%

36 16 4 25% 16 100% 4 25% 9 56%

37 23 13 57% 16 70% 9 39% 9 39%

38 17 3 18% 8 47% 16 94% 5 29%

39 46 10 22% 9 20% 7 15% 6 13%

40 67 50 75% 49 73% 48 72% 18 27%

Totals 808 427 53% 512 63% 473 59% 418 52%

Weeknight Average On-Street Occupancy

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

94

Table A-5: LFCPA Garages Peak Occupancy (9/9/2014)


Block #Supply 10:00AM Percentage 1:30PM Percentage Average Percentage

1 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

2 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

3 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

4 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

5 382 271 71% 281 74% 270 71%

6 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

7 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

8 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

9 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

10 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

11 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

12 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

13 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

14 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

15 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

16 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

17 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

18 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

19 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

20 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

21 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

22 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

23 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

24 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

25 518 304 59% 290 56% 284 55%

26 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

27 380 252 66% 240 63% 232 61%

28 777 680 88% 650 84% 664 85%

29 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

30 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

31 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

32 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

33 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

34 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

35 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

36 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

37 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

38 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

39 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

40 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

41 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Totals 2,057 1,507 73% 1,461 71% 1,450 70%

LFCPA Garages

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

95

Table A-6: Non-LFCPA Public Parking Occupancy (9/9/2014)


Block #Supply 10:00AM Percentage 1:30PM Percentage Average Percentage

1 41 10 24% 3 7% 9 22%

2 26 20 77% 16 62% 18 69%

3 190 154 81% 145 76% 147 77%

4 182 132 73% 117 64% 118 65%

5 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

6 479 438 91% 421 88% 435 91%

7 327 220 67% 164 50% 200 61%

8 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

9 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

10 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

11 600 526 88% 521 87% 537 90%

12 307 192 63% 160 52% 192 63%

13 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

14 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

15 92 58 63% 52 57% 59 64%

16 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

17 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

18 184 130 71% 105 57% 99 54%

19 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

20 83 61 73% 54 65% 57 69%

21 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

22 67 63 94% 65 97% 64 96%

23 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

24 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

25 84 72 86% 64 76% 66 79%

26 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

27 423 249 59% 242 57% 238 56%

28 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

29 103 76 74% 63 61% 65 63%

30 49 28 57% 28 57% 28 57%

31 72 30 42% 25 35% 28 38%

32 412 221 54% 211 51% 216 52%

33 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

34 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

35 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

36 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

37 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

38 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

39 255 129 51% 119 47% 127 50%

40 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

41 2,511 794 32% 852 34% 775 31%

Totals 6,487 3,603 56% 3,427 53% 3,478 54%

Non-LFCPA Public Parking Occupancy

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

96

Table A-7: Non-LFCPA Public Parking Adequacy (9/9/2014)

Observation Periods: Thursday October 9th, 2014

Sources: Walker Parking Consultants

Block #

LFCPA

Effective

Supply

Peak

Occupancy Adequacy

non-LFCPA

Effective

Supply

Peak

Occupancy Adequacy

On-Street

Effective

Supply

Peak

Occupancy Adequacy

Total

Adequacy

1 0 0 0 39 10 29 45 33 12 41

2 0 0 0 25 20 5 19 18 1 53 0 0 0 181 154 27 9 12 (3) 24

4 0 0 0 173 132 41 20 20 (0) 405 344 271 73 0 0 0 9 9 0 73

6 0 0 0 455 438 17 3 0 3 20

7 0 0 0 311 220 91 13 16 (3) 878 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 2 2

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 16 (7) (7)11 0 0 0 570 526 44 13 8 5 49

12 0 0 0 292 192 100 21 8 13 113

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 (1) (1)14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 15 (1) (1)

15 0 0 0 87 58 29 19 13 6 3516 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 6 6 6

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 7 4 4

18 0 0 0 175 130 45 17 4 13 5819 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 19 3 3

20 0 0 0 79 61 18 21 15 6 24

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 0 0 0 64 63 1 13 5 8 8

23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 24 1 1

25 466 304 162 80 72 8 8 9 (1) 168

26 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 6 627 342 252 90 402 249 153 19 16 3 246

28 699 680 19 0 0 0 7 0 7 26

29 0 0 0 98 76 22 58 11 47 6930 0 0 0 47 28 19 14 0 14 32

31 0 0 0 68 30 38 29 12 17 55

32 0 0 0 391 221 170 0 0 0 17033 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 15 15

34 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 1135 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 10 10 10

36 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 6 8 8

37 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 13 7 738 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3 11 11

39 0 0 0 242 129 113 39 14 25 138

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 28 29 2941 0 0 0 2,385 794 1,591 0 0 0 1,591

Totals 1,851 1,507 344 6,163 3,603 2,560 687 413 274 3,177

Parking Adequacy

LEXINGTON, KY


APRIL 2015 FINAL

97

Download - LEXINGTON, KY

Top Related